In Henry IV, part 1 each character's individual conception of the abstract notion of ‘honor’ effectively defines them. Falstaff elucidates his views about the concept of ‘honor’ as the troops assemble for battle at Shrewsbury:
Falstaff’s critique of honor as ephemeral and intangible comes as a result of his inability to obtain it. Even before the subject of honor is broached, Falstaff’s apathy is apparent. His aside comes after Princes Hal leaves saying in parting, “Why thou owest God a death”(V.1.126). The subject of his mortality, brought up by Hal, prompts him to become cynical and reflective. He quickly admonishes Hal’s joking goodbye by reassuring himself that his death is “not due yet”. The language he uses when talking about his
…show more content…
mortality, likening his life to as a transaction with God (he doesn't want to “pay him before his day”) demonstrates how secularized he is. He shows no reverence for God, which indicates that he lacks the schema that religion provides that would make him able to integrate the abstract, virtuous qualities that are inherent to understanding the notion of ‘honor’. Since Falstaff lacks what can be considered a ‘conventional’ value system, he cannot ascribe the same meaning to a term as magnanimous as honor is. Falstaff’s value system is based upon self-gratification by means of money, food and alcohol he cannot relate to the communal value system that is by in large based upon honor. Additionally, Falstaff’s relationship as a friend of the prince elevates his social status helps him to be exempt from the obligation to prescribe to the same moral code as everybody else. Although he is technically a knight preparing for battle, Falstaff has no intention of dying for the cause. This is evident in the line,“What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me” (128), he is essentially placating himself and justifying his laziness by saying that it isn’t his time to die. Falstaff’s disposition is very often cowardly and this scene is no departure from that. Falstaff is aware of the nature of a battle and he selfishly believes that he can count on the number of poor dead soldiers, or as he said previously the “food for powder” (IV.2. 65) will be plentiful enough to satiate some kind of imaginary threshold that ensures the defeat of the rebel army. Falstaff’s willingness to count on the death of his own men demonstrates that he has no regard for anyone other than himself and perhaps for his friend Prince Harry. This flagrant disregard for humankind comes as no surprise due to Falstaff’s muddled morals and lack of a value system. In an effort to distance himself from the subject of mortality, Falstaff begins to ruminate upon the concept of honor, which he initially says “pricks” him on.
The deconstruction of the word that follows makes it clear that honor does not actually urge him on. Its as if the vernacular of the noble class that surrounds him and the beliefs they uphold have seeped into Falstaff’s unconscious, causing him to espouse the same kind of rhetoric that they so often do. After recognizing that he had regurgitated the word ‘honor’ from some outside source he begins to decipher what it really means to him. He uses the pun, “but if honor prick me off when I come on?” to illustrate his inability to use honor a motivator because it so often leads to one’s death. There are also a sexual innuendos to this pun, the words ‘prick’ and ‘come’ which undoubtedly the comic Falstaff is playing off of both for a laugh and as a way to belittle the idea of honor. The courage that can be obtained through using honor as a motivator can lead one into dangerous and deadly situations, Falstaff sees that risk and distances himself from upholding honor any …show more content…
further. The use of honor as an excuse for violence does not sit well with Falstaff because ultimately honor is something you believe, something that is physically intangible.
Injuries to your corporeal body, on the otherhand are very tangible. Although injuries may have been sustained in the name of honor, no amount of honor can physically heal. Falstaff is a very pragmatic man and abstract notions mean little to him if they have no substantial, physical manifestation. Falstaff questions the usefulness of honor by asking questions like, “Can honor set to a leg? No.”(V.1.131), which once again display his utilitarian stance towards the abstract concept. Falstaff’s insistence on empirical evidence as the determining factor for deciding whether or not to affirm ‘honor’ as a is sensible given his reputation as a licentious glutton and would-be thief would have prevented him from ever being described as honorable. The concept of honor seems esoteric to Falstaff because he lacks a conventional value system that would cause him to grasp the wholesome, benevolent qualities that are intrinsically linked to ‘honor’. Furthermore the relationship between the honor and its use as a pretense for legitimizing the violence perpetrated by the noble class strikes Falstaff as both unjust and perplexing given the immaterial benefits one reaps from becoming a champion of
honor. Falstaff disparages the notion of honor by equating it to mere “air”, describing it as “Air- a trim reckoning!” (V.1. 134). The concept of honor, however crucial to one's moral code, ultimately only only exists in the abstract.. Words, when spoken are also ephemeral, much like wind or air. They surround us, but they only gain power when we ascribe it to them, and Falstaff refuses to empower a concept that he cannot sense. Falstaff also contends with the theory of honor on the grounds that it is only ever really granted posthumously, and even then it means nothing if it is imperceptible. He chides the nature of honor as being “a mere scutcheon”, a trait that is can only truly be commended in death as a way eulogize the fallen. Falstaff ends his critique upon the value of honor with the phrase, “and so ends my catechism” which is ironic because it is an allusion to religious faith. Catechism also requires two participants and Falstaff’s soliloquy is a dialogue to himself where he unravels his personal conception of the notion of honor. For Falstaff to denounce a concept that is so crucial to those around him, notably his friend Prince Hal, is audacious. Shakespeare’s inclusion of Falstaff’s views on honor serve to bring up larger, philosophical questions about the worthiness of ‘honor’ as the crux of one’s moral code or as the impetus for violence.
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.
The first influence that Shakespeare illustrates over Prince Hal is that of Falstaff, a fat old man who seems to spend his life in seedy taverns accruing massive amounts of debt. From his devious scheme to rob unknowing travelers at the beginning of the story to his diatribe on what honor is not, it is clear that Falstaff has a very distinct notion of his own personal honor, and he seems to be trying to project that same notion onto Hal; however, as Hal becomes closer to his father, Falstaff's honor becomes less appealing. Falstaff treats Hal and King Henry IV to his own personal code of honor-or lack thereof:
In Act 1, Scene 2, Hal and Falstaff are dinking at the bar. We get the
one's eyes as time passes, but because it reigns the ebb and flow of the tides.
Humans are addicted to judging others on their first impression. Humans will never read into the book, they just look at the cover. Many people, both fictional and nonfictional can not be judged until you study them. Someone who first appears to be only comic relief, could end up to be a very important character. Sir John Falstaff is but one of these people. Falstaff's righteousness hides under his vocalization. John Falstaff's character is hard to understand without analyzing his words. He loves to play games with his speech. Falstaff tricks his audience with complex words and phrases. Often John would win over his opponent by tricking them into saying things that they did not mean or getting them to think that he is not that bad. Falstaff said this in Part I act II scene IV. "... A question not to be asked. Shall the son of England prove a thief and take purses? A question to be asked. There is a thing, Harry, which thou hast often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest. For, Harry, now I do not speak to thee in drink, but in tears; not in pleasure, but in passion; not in words only, but in woes also; and yet there is a virtuous man whom I have often noted in thy company, but I know not his name." In this passage, the Prince and Fastaff trade places in speech and try to make the other look dumb. Fastaff later goes on to say that this wonderful person that the King is talking about. The way Falstaff does this proves him to be very keen. He proves that even though he may look dumb, he will still put up a good fight. Falstaff is very bold about his thoughts and opinions. He stands out because he is not afraid to think his own way. While most people agree, because of the other people around them, Falstaff chooses to make his own decisions and think for himself. This is proven when Falstaff and the prince switch places in a verbal fight. Every one else in the book thinks of the Prince as a perfect young man because he is the prince, however Falstaff is too smart for this, he points out that the prince is a thief.
the lower class people. Falstaff did not hold the same view of honor as any
Before the final battle Falstaff asks for Hal’s protection. Hal’s response is, "Say thy prayers, and farewell. Why, thou owest God a death"(5.1.124-126). This statement gives the impression that Hal has had a change of heart. In Act 5.2, Hal shows a different kind of honor when he attempts to take away all of Hotspur’s honor.
One of the key words in his dialogue is 'honour' because in Elizabethan times honour was bound up with ideas of nobility and manliness. Henry has constant reference to the divine, to get permission for his actions, 'God's will.' Additionally there is various uses of semantic fields, associated with religion, God, covet, honour and sin; all taken from the bible. Henry applies a very close relationship term, 'cuz.'
Honour within the Elizabethan era primarily stood for the reputation of a person, and it offered respect and admiration. Shakespeare undoubtedly chose to position the responder to depict his own perception on honour due to the prevalence of it throughout his political landscape and its impacts on everyday life. The notion of honour, is first established within the guilt-ridden King Henry IV, who wears a figurative bloody crown as a result of his deposition of his cousin, Richard II. King Henry IV kicks off the play with an attempt to clear his conscience while maintaining the illusion of a clear one to his subordinates. He says to the Lord of Lancaster and the Earl of Westmoreland: “To chase these pagans in those holy fields / over whose acres walked those blessed feet / which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed / for our advantage on the bitter cross.” in Act 1, Scene 1. There are two red herrings Shakespeare throws out to produce the illusion of a stable conscience and an honourable heart to his subjects and these are the use of blank verse to signify nobility and thus power, and the use of the pluralistic language found within ‘our advantage’. The King shies away from the singular ‘I’ so as not to draw attention to the plague ravaging his conscience, and Shakespeare through this shines light on the gratuity of an act such as a Holy
At the start of the play, the reader sees that Prince Hal has been acting in a manner which has disappointed his father. The King compares Hotspur to Hal, saying that Hotspur is ìA son who is the theme of honour's tongue,î and that ìriot and dishonour stain the brow of [Hal] (I.i.3).î He even wishes that the two were switched: ìThen would I have his Harry, and he mine (I.i.3).î The King obviously does not approve of Hal's actions, and believes that, if Hal does not change his ways, he will be a poor successor to the throne.
Falstaff made life exciting for Prince Harry, and he was fun to be around. His character is in sharp contrast with the nobility which will be Harry's companions at court when he becomes King, and seems to be quite dishonest by comparison. However, in some ways, he is truer than any of the noblemen, because he is quite person concerning his own self interest. It is not that he does not lie. He does, in the last scene of Act II, when he tells about how he and his companions were robbed by other highwaymen after capturing their prize, "All! I know not what you call all, but if I fought not with fifty of them, I am a bunch of radish: if there were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature." Harry and Poins were, of course, the robbers who fell on the...
This is exemplified by Hal, the future Henry V. At the beginning of the play, Hal is not a very promising young prince—everyone in the kingdom does “forethink [his] fall” (3.2.38) because of the company of degenerates he keeps, his frequent patronization of the tavern, and his leisure activities of robbing pilgrims. Critics excuse these earlier behaviours as a disguise because of Hal’s first soliloquy at the end of the second scene of act one. In that soliloquy, Hal explains that this disguise will serve as “foil” that will make his “reformation” “show[s] more goodly and attract[s] more eyes” (1.2.150-52). However, judging from the fact that he easily concedes the glory of killing Hotspur to Falstaff, saying that “ if a lie may do thee grace,/ I’ll gild it with the happiest terms I have” (5.3.147-48)—a glory that he promises to Henry IV as a token of his reformation (3.2), a glory that will surely redeem his past behaviours in the eyes of the multitude—it is clear that what is said is just an excuse for him to enjoy himself just a little longer, before he has to “pay the debt [he] never promised” (1.3.146-47). This also corroborates with the theory that there has been “less autonomy in self-fashioning” and that “family, state” imposed a “more rigid” control over self-fashioning (Greenblatt 1)—in Hal case, his father (family) and his future subjects (state) and the
Hal understands that those of high birth have a greater responsibility to be honorable. The jealousy that comes with the persistent protection of one’s honor is a characteristic seen in almost every noble figure, but Hal’s attitude toward honor is different than those around him- especially Hotspur. Unlike Hotspur, who serves the code of honor, Hal intends to abuse it by postponing his acquisition of honor so that when he eventually attains it his reputation will seem greater than it would’ve originally.
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
This questioning of what is actually important, physical needs or conceptual ideals, was relevant in Shakespeare’s time, and still is today. Living under Elizabeth I, the product of major religious upheaval, Shakespeare may have been disillusioned with the worlds of kings and queens of which he wrote. The belief in the importance of honor and reputation was still very popular during this time period, and in a play in which the entire plot revolved around these ideals Falstaff’s speech sticks out. This may have been a subtle critique of these values held so dearly by Shakespeare’s