Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Character analysis of falstaff
Character of falstaff in henry iv assignment
Character of falstaff in henry iv assignment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Character analysis of falstaff
The Character of Falstaff in Henry IV Part I
In Henry IV Part I, Shakespeare presents a collection of traditional heroes. Hotspur’s laudable valor, King Henry’s militaristic reign, and Hal’s princely transformation echo the socially extolled values of the Elizabethean male. Molding themselves after societal standards, these flat characters contrast Sir John Falstaff’s round, spirited personality. Through Falstaff’s unorthodox behavior and flagrant disregard for cultural traditions, Shakespeare advocates one’s personal values above society’s.
Extolled as the "essence of Shakespeare’s dramatic art" (Bloom 299) and ridiculed as the symbol of self-indulgence and vice, the character of Sir John Falstaff, a loquacious knight, elicits a dichotomy within the Shakespearean critical community. This controversy originates in the rendition of Shakespeare’s intention in creating Sir John Falstaff. Literary critics such as John Dover Wilson and Edgar Stoll espouse that Shakespeare created Falstaff to serve as Hal’s "attendant spirit...typifying Vanity in every sense of the word" (Wilson 17). These anti-Falstaff carpers claim that the theme of Henry IV Part I, being a morality play, is the "growing-up of a madcap prince into the ideal king" (Wilson 22). If this were the case then Falstaff, "a besotted and disgusting old wretch" (Shaw qtd. in Goddard 71), represents an obstacle that Hal must overcome to tranform into a regal king. Asserting that Hal "associates Falstaff...with the devil" (Wilson 20), being the antithesis of heroism and virtue, Falstaff "symbolizes...the feasting and good cheer for which Eastcheap stood, and reflects...the shifts, subterfuges, and shady tricks that decayed gentleman and soldiers were put to if they wi...
... middle of paper ...
...is rivals; Hal gives up any personal freedom he might have displayed in order to follow in his father’s footsteps. Falstaff survives, not only years, but through centuries as well. Lauded, ridiculed, and analyzed Falstaff surpasses death by continuously published literary criticism and interpretation. No other Shakespearean character is as studied, examined, or investigated. Fascinating to spectators, Falstaff is a "character that will follow [the audience] out of the theatre."
Works Cited
Hazlitt, William. Hazlitt's Works. 8 vols. Ed. W. Carew Hazlitt. London: George Bell, 1905.
Hazlitt, William. Hazlitt’s Criticism of Shakespeare: A Selection. Ed. R. S.White. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1996
Becker
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998
Bradley
Desai
Morgann
Shaw
Stoll
Wilson
Goddart
Falstaff’s blatantly honest soliloquy has provided the audience with a direct insight into his mind, and contrasts well with Hal and Hotspur’s speeches, in which their moral order and regard for honour is evident. Falstaff helps to show the change in Hal to the audience. Falstaff himself is no different to the Falstaff of Act 1, unlike Hal who has obviously undergone a great deal of change. Falstaff’s speech is highly typical of the tavern world’s way of thinking: straightforward, sometimes humorous, spoken in prose, and only the values of the tavern world taken into consideration, with no regard for such insubstantial, un-physical concepts as honour. In this way, and spoken directly to the audience, Falstaff effectively expresses his unashamed resolution not to submit to moral order.
In chapter two, ‘Francis and His Companions,’ Cunningham exposes the considerable growth in Francis of Assisi’s influence, as he recounts his companions that joined him after deciding to live his life. The chapter is significant because it exposes how Francis of Assisi’s gospel is different from the orthodox Catholic practices, which recognized the pope, as the sole Vicar of Christ. (Cunningham 32). This chapter is important in my life because it reinforces my conviction God is the almighty and all-powerful, and all people regardless of the status of the needed to worship
Prince Hal is initially portrayed as being incapable of princely responsibilities in light of his drinking, robbery and trickery. Yet, Shakespeare reveals that Hal is in fact only constructing this false impression for the purpose of deceit. Prince Hal’s manipulative nature is evident in his first soliloquy, when he professes his intention to “imitate the sun” and “break through the foul and ugly mists”. The ‘sun’ Prince Hal seeks to ‘imitate’ can in this case be understood as his true capacity, as opposed to the false impression of his incapacity, which is symbolised by the ‘foul and ugly mists’. The differentiation of Hal’s capacity into two categories of that which is false and that which is true reveals the duplicity of his character. Moreover, Hal is further shown to be manipulative in the same soliloquy by explaining his tactic of using the “foil” of a lowly reputation against his true capacity to “attract more eyes” and “show more goodly”. The diction of “eyes” symbolically represents public deception, concluding political actions are based on strategy. It is through representation and textual form that we obtain insight into this
Falstaff who seems to be Hal’s role model while in the Tavern, is putting forth a great deal of effort to have Hal conform into the lowlife that he himself has made himself out to be. Falstaff teaches Hal how to lie, cheat, and steal, but Hal seems to have a mind of his own. He tells his father that at any given moment he can change his character and be what his father wants him to be. Henry declines to believe these statements.
Toliver, Harold E. "Falstaff, The Prince, and the History Play." Sanderson, Henry the Fourth, Part 1. 169-193.
Who is Francis of Assisi? What makes him such an influence in our religious history? What are his accomplishments and insights that helped shape Christianity to what it is today? How did his actions to perform the gospel life change the view of Christianity? There are many factors that went into the life of Francis that made Christianity what it is today. The transition that Francis had to go through in order to become a man of Christ, to the attempt to convert the Sultan. Saint Francis relationships with his father, Saint Clare, and Bishop Guido, all of which have contributed to the successes of Francis throughout his life.
Being a prisoner of war did take a toll on Francis. His body became so sick that he almost died and it took over a year to recover. It was during this year that for the first time in his young life, he did some serious pondering. He explored the age old problems, "What am I?", "Where do I come from?", "Where am I going", "What is this world?" and "What is love?".
The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling, is clearly a poor influence for a future ruler such as Prince Hal, and Worcester, who shares Hotspur's temper, encourages Hotspur to make rash decisions. The entire plot of the play is based on which father-figure these characters choose to follow: had they chosen the other, the outcome would have been wholly different.
Warren, Roger. Shakespeare Survey 30. N.p.: n.p., 1977. Pp. 177-78. Rpt. in Shakespeare in the Theatre: An Anthology of Criticism. Stanley Wells, ed. England: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Shakespeare, William, Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare. Second ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
As previously stated Saint Augustine wasn’t always a Saint. Before he fully converted to Christianity, Saint Augustine encountered numerous acts, in which his decisions were not always that of a righteous Saint. The first noticeable co...
He is happy being a drunkard and someone who indulges what he wants. But he also realizes that it is not the type of life that a prince, or a king, should associate himself with, which leads him to his pleading—another reason the scene is prophetic. He pleads with Henry about his morality, much like he will do later in the play and in Henry IV: Part II. Though the play extempore is supposed to prepare Henry for his encounter with his father. Falstaff realizes it may be a good time to practice the inevitable encounter that he will have with Hal once he becomes king. This argument can be further developed when one realizes that it was Falstaff that called for the play extempore, not Hal. Falstaff knew he wanted a trial run before Hal’s kingship, so he gave himself one. However, Hal’s only reaction to Falstaff’s final speech is his line, “I do, I will” (2.4. 465). Some may take this as his answer to Falstaff that he will pardon him, and continue to be his friend. But the argument could be made that Hal is saying that line more to himself than to Falstaff. He is saying that he will do what’s necessary to be a good king. That he does have what it takes to leave a life he enjoys for a life of
Shakespeare’s Personality. Ed. Norman N. Holland, Sidney Homan, and Bernard J. Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. 116. - 134.
All to often, readers get tired of reading books or essays because they lose interest or can not keep the reader’s attention. However, Harry Potter is quite different. The main reason why it is delightful and fun for people of all ages to read Harry Potter is because everyone can relate to a character or conflict in the book. Not being accepted, being self-conscious of what others think, dealing with bullies overcoming obstacles and living up to people’s standards are all situations that we deal with in our everyday life and all those situations can be found throughout the book. For example Draco Malfoy, plats an insolent, and unpleasant student at Hogwarts who is constantly challenging and bullying Harry. Harry is also somewhat of a celebrity, being the son of two prestigious and intelligent wizards. He is constantly trying his best to prove himself while trying to live up to his teachers and friends. In the book the characters assume that Harry is this perfect and equitable wizard who should know how to do certain things. Well, because Harry grew up with his relatives, the Dursleys, who treat Harry with no respect and are cruel and very distant to him. He feels unwanted and unloved. All to often in our society children are abused or mistreated and we sometimes don’t hear about it or are not aware of it because the children may have been forced to silence because of fear of what might happen if they do talk.