Sir John Falstaff In Shakespeare's Henry IV

Many of Shakespeare’s works are susceptible to multiple readings and interpretations, including the interpretation of characters. William Shakespeare’s play 1 Henry IV is no exception. The character of John Falstaff has been the subject of many debates regarding his character and whether he is a purely comedic character or if he, in fact, is a character of tragic origins. Falstaff is a character who appears mostly in scenes at The Boar’s Head, which is a pub in the play. There are very moments in which readers can analyze Falstaff for more than a town drunk. Although many believe Sir John Falstaff is a comedic character, the interactions he has with Prince Hal, his alcoholism, his wise soliloquy and his quick thinking on the battlefield portray

him as anything but comedic. While Falstaff is portrayed as a purely comedic character, he is more than just that of comedy; he is a character of tragedy, compassion, love and brilliance.
Prince Hal and John Falstaff have a relationship that is seen throughout the play; whether the relationship is a good relationship is the question. There is a prominent power differentiation between Falstaff and Prince Hal. As his name suggests, Prince Hal is the one who will succeed King Henry IV when his time as king comes to an end (on the assumption that he will not be usurped). Prince Hal reminds Falstaff of his lack of power and how other people perceive him. Falstaff also addresses Hal in a way that suggests regality by calling him “good Prince Hal” and “good King’s son” (Shakespeare 2.2.35-36). Through constant verbal abuse of Falstaff, Hal asserts himself as being greater than Falstaff. In act I scene II, the first words that the prince speaks to Falstaff are words of judgement and critique. Hal refers to Falstaff as “fat-witted” and claims that someone as devilish as Falstaff has no reason to concern himself with the time of day (1.2.2-10). By criticizing Falstaff for asking the time of day, Hal is enforcing the idea that Falstaff is a lesser character and does not deserve to know the time of day, nor does Falstaff have any need for the time of day, since Hal believes that Falstaff spends his time drinking sac and eating. After this first exchange of words between the two, Hal does not give Falstaff the time, implying that he has ignored his disregarded his request and therefore, has shown no respect towards Falstaff. This interaction between the two sets up the dynamic of the relationship between the two for the rest of the play.
In act II scene IV Falstaff and Hal are taking roles in acting out the possible interaction between Hal and his father, King Henry.

At first, Hal plays himself and Falstaff plays Henry. In this interpretation of the conversation, Falstaff is making jokes as well as complimenting himself, as he believes the King should. However, when the roles are reversed and Hal is playing the King and Falstaff is playing Hal, the interaction between the two becomes much more hostile. Hal, in quick succession, insults Falstaff without break. He refers to him as an old fat man, who resembles a devil. Hal relates him to animals, a sack of diseases, a drunk, and a bag full of guts. Hal claims that Falstaff is a man who is villainous and is worthy of nothing (2.4.397-409). After all of these insults, Falstaff, who is, arguably, still acting as Hal, defends himself. He claims that while it is true, he is in fact old, that is no reason for him to be seen as lesser. He says that if “sack and sugar be a fault, God help the wicked” and claims that being old and merry is to be hated, which Falstaff believes is wrong (2.4.416-428). He defends himself from the other insults that Hal has put on him. This interaction between the two further illustrates the hostile relationship between Hal and Falstaff. Falstaff’s attempt to dispel the criticisms that Hal has of Falstaff illustrates for readers that there is more to Falstaff than a comedic aspect. Falstaff is aware how people perceive him as he brings up his age in many of his conversations and makes jokes about himself drinking sac constantly. This scene in particular is open to multiple interpretations and many suggest that this interaction is a friendly one and the criticisms are all in good fun but the power dynamic between the two makes it impossible for them be on truly equal grounds. This power dynamic is taken further when Hal takes on the role of the king. By taking on the role of the king and insulting Falstaff, there is an even

larger difference of power between the two. The aforementioned example of Hal not telling the time to Falstaff further exemplifies the fact that Hal truly does not care about Falstaff and his well-being. In the act I scene II Prince Hal’s soliloquy alerts readers to his ill intentions that will take place throughout the play. Hal uses dark imagery as well as language of deceit (1.2.168-190). His deceit is for self-gain, suggesting that his main interest is himself and therefore, it is assumed that all of his current relationships are to further this image of himself that will lower expectations that others have for him. This then, suggests that all of Hal’s criticisms of Falstaff throughout the entirety of the play are meant to be taken seriously and are not for fun, but instead are at the expense of Falstaff.
In act II scene II, during the scene in which the robbery takes place, Hal and Poins have conspired a plan to rob Falstaff and the other thieves. Poins and Hal do not help in the initial robbery, leaving Falstaff to rob the travellers with less experienced robbers and then, as Falstaff is sharing the loot Poins and Hal set upon the thieves to steal their loot. In the Norton Critical Edition, it is suggested that Falstaff receives two blows and leaves the loot behind (2.3.90-91). This suggests that Falstaff was physically harmed by Hal and Poins suggesting that Hal does not only abuse Falstaff verbally, but also physically, further illustrating the fact that their relationship is not one of equality and is instead, a friendship of advantage and exploitation. Hal, a character who is in no need for the money has conspired a plan to rob one of his so-called “best friends” who is in need of the money more than one who is royalty. After the robbery, Hal says to Poins that “Falstaff sweats to death and lards the lean earth as he walks along. Were’t not for laughing, I should pity him” (2.2.95-97). Although what Falstaff has done is not admirable in any sense of the word, what Hal has done is exponentially worse than what Falstaff has done. First off, Hal has broken a promise that he has had with Falstaff in the robbery of the travellers and secondly, he does not care about the physically well-being of Falstaff. He is laughing at the fact that he may be dying instead of being worried. At the least, Hal says he should feel “pity”, an emotion that is not even necessarily a truly caring emotion and instead is an emotion of condescendence. This scene is not in the least bit comedic when considering Falstaff and is instead rather tragic.
Maurice Morgann, in her essay titled “The Courage of Falstaff” claims that “no part of [Falstaff’s] character seems to be fully settled in our minds […]” (Morgann 223). This claim suggests that there is an uncertainty regarding the portrayal of Falstaff and we perceive him as a character. That being said, this suggests that he is clearly not a one dimensional character. If Falstaff, was in fact, a truly comedic character, there would be no need for this uncertainty that surrounds him. Morgann then states that “we all like Old Jack; yet, by some perverse fate, we all abuse him, and deny him the possession of any one single good or respectable quality” (223-224). If we as readers abuse Falstaff, and are unable to associate any one good quality to him, it is clear that Shakespeare’s intentions were not then, to portray him as a comedic character since most comedic characters in plays are the most liked characters. These actions that Morgann ascribes to readers of the play can also be ascribed to the other characters in the play and how they relate to Falstaff. There are no instances in which others speak of Falstaff in a positive light implying that those who laugh while Falstaff is speaking, are laughing at him, not with him. Morgann’s analysis of the reader’s perception of Falstaff make it impossible to see him as a comedic character and instead, readers are forced to perceive Falstaff in a very tragic light.
Falstaff performs actions that are considered compassionate and kind but these actions are overshadowed by the reader’s own idea of who Falstaff is. Throughout the play, Falstaff is a fatherly figure towards Hal, who has been rejected by his own father. The most recognizable instance of Falstaff being a fatherly figure towards Hal is seen in the scene in which Falstaff plays the king in the interaction between them, in which this paper has already addressed. Hal’s constant abuse of Falstaff suggests that although Falstaff is trying his best to be a good person to Hal and to treat him with the love that his biological father refuses to provide him, Hal refuses this and instead, takes out his anger that he has towards his father on the one who attempts to be a fatherly figure. Falstaff also shows compassion to those who are sick, criminals or those who are dying. When drafting people for a battle, he chooses to draft those are considered undesirable by others. He does this so others can die with honour. These people who he chose to be in his army would have died without honour, which is one of the most desirable traits in society, as Falstaff points out in act IV scene II. He says that honour is just a word and that word is just air (Shakespeare 5.1.127-139). This means that Falstaff believes that honour is not a trait that he cares to have personally. Even though he feels this way about honour, he is willing to give up his beliefs for those who do believe in honour and what it stands for. By doing this he shows that he is a compassionate and understanding person. He is giving opportunity for those who have not had access to honour, to finally have it in the battlefield.
Falstaff’s view on honour once again comes into question on the battlefield. During act V scene IV the final battles commence between Hotspur and Hal. Falstaff comes into the battlefield to find the two battling. As Falstaff enters, as does Douglas who attempts to fight Falstaff. Falstaff falls as if he were dead (5.4.73-76). When Hal kills Hotspur, Hal leaves and Falstaff gets up, stabs Hotspur in the thigh and pretends as if he was the one who killed Hotspur (5.4.110-126). He does this to earn honour even though he does not necessarily believe it is a necessary trait and instead, realizes that it valued highly in society and therefore desires it. He acts in this way because this is the first time that he will have a trait that is desirable in his society. Falstaff’s brilliance is highlighted here, again proving that he is more than just comedic. His brilliance does come through deceit and humour, but none the less, it is still brilliance.
Through Sir John Falstaff’s actions and conversations readers can see that he is more than just a comedic character. He is a character that uses comedy as a coping mechanism to the negative perceptions people have about him. He is a character who, at the surface seems like there is nothing to, in fact, is full of conflict and worthy of inspection. The inspection of Falstaff is important to people to see that people have more than one dimension and should not be disregarded and considered to be foolish.