 |
|
ESSAY SAMPLE ON "FALSTAFF'S ROLE IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY IV, PART ONE" |
Henry IV, Part One, has always been one of the most
popular of Shakespeare's plays, maybe because of Falstaff. Much of the early criticism I
found concentrated on Falstaff and so
will I. This may begin in the eighteenth century with Samuel Johnson. For Johnson, the
Prince is a "young man of great abilities and violent passions," and Hotspur is a "rugged
soldier," but "Falstaff, unimitated, unimitable Falstaff, how shall I describe thee? Thou
compound of sense and vice . . . a character loaded with faults, and with faults which
produce contempt . . . a thief, a glutton, a coward, and a boaster, always ready to cheat
the weak and prey upon the poor; to terrify the timorous and insult the defenceless . . .
his wit is not of the splendid or ambitious kind, but consists in easy escapes and
sallies of levity [yet] he is stained with no enormous or sanguinary crimes, so that his
licentiousness is not so offensive but that it may be borne for his mirth."
Johnson makes three assumptions in his reading of the play:
1. That Falstaff is the kind of character who invites a moral judgment mainly that
he can answer to the charge of being a coward.
2. That you (the reader) can detach Falstaff's frivolity from the play and it can
exist for its own sake apart from the major theme of the drama.
3. That the play is really about the fate of the kingdom, and that you (the reader)
do not connect Falstaff's scenes with the main action. This means that the play has no
real unity.
Starting with Johnson's first assumption, I do agree with this. Any discussion of
Falstaff is bound to include a judgement about his moral character. Is he a coward, a
thief, a glutton? No one can deny that he is in fact a glutton and a thief. A coward is
debatable. I choose to think he is. He is self centered and cares only for his own profit
and enjoyment. He will protect himself at all costs including playing " possum" if
necessary to avoid injury. When he misuses the money intended to buy troops and weapons,
he turns it into profit for himself. Once again, with no concern for anyone else, he
potentially jeopardizes the troops, the battle and the kingdom with substandard men and
materials while making money for himself. It makes the reader question, what kind of
friend is he to Hal that he would misuse the trust that has been given him. All the
easier for Hal to ultimately recognize that this is not the kind of person or people he
wants to associate himself with, let alone approve of.
Johnson's second assumption that you can detach Falstaff's frivolity from the real
drama is in fact true, but what would you have left? A less interesting, less amusing
drama with only one main plot. Falstaff is of paramount importance to the sub-plot
dealing with Hal's decision between continuing his carefree life style or maturing into
the role he is destined to play as a respected prince and later king. This story would be
pretty dull if Hal didn't have to choose between an entertaining life like Falstaff's or
an honorable one as a gallant warrior and respected leader.
Johnson's last assumption that the "Falstaff" scenes have nothing to do with the
main action is incorrect if you agree that this sub-plot is necessary for an engaging
drama. In Act 2, Scene 4, after Hal says, while role playing as the King with Falstaff,
"That villainous abominable misleader of youth, Falstaff, that old white-bearded Satan".
Falstaff, as Hal, tries to reason, "No, my good lord, banish Peto, banish Bardolph,
banish Poins, but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff,
valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being as he is old Jack Falstaff,
banish not him thy Harry's company, banish him not thy Harry's company; banish plump
Jack, and banish all the world". Hal, again as the King, says, "I do, I will". He
indicates that after becoming king he would choose to rid the kingdom of people the likes
of Falstaff. He is indicating that he has chosen the path for his life and made his own
moral judgement on Falstaff. This scene and therefore Falstaff's very being are
significant to show Hal's evolution into a "true" prince.
Falstaff's character is necessary to Hal's character development just as Hotspur's
temperament is necessary to his. Falstaff's wit, humor and amusing antics are needed to
develop Hal. He helps us relate to Hal and his decision. We know people of all types of
character and personality in our lives. They influence our thinking and decisions. So it
is also necessary for Hal.
Wether Falstaff is only a coward and glutton, or a person who has an "amusing" way of
expressing his deeply felt personal and political beliefs is a matter of individual
interpretation. I am not sure that it really matters as long as it contributes to Hal's
maturing process, and it does.
In conclusion, every age of man has and will continue to judge Falstaff's role based
on the morals and the thinking of the day. His frivolity is necessary to make the play
amusing and interesting enough to hold the reader's/viewer's attention. However, that
Falstaff's scenes are needed should go without question leaving the critics and us only
to debate his motivation and his tactics.
|
| Click here for more essays on FALSTAFF'S ROLE IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY IV, PART ONE |
|
|
|