Falstaffs role transcend that of a buffon in henry IV Essay

Falstaff’s role undoubtedly transcends that of a buffoon however Falstaff is also portrayed as an anarchic spirit, ready to defy any rules in order to satisfy his own appetites. Falstaff’s extrovert character therefore has an inevitable affect on Hals later decisions. Shakespeare portrays Falstaff as an enormous paradox. He is a huge man, who is so quick witted and so deft at manipulating language that he remains eternally elusive. He is quick to use others and has no sense of honesty, yet he gives and inspires great affection in those around him. He is a relatively old man, yet he refuses to admit the fact. He is a knight of the realm, yet acknowledges no sense that being a knight requires of him any decorum, loyalty, or respectable behaviour. He is an enormously selfish man, but he brings out of others some of their best qualities of wit, good fellowship, and conversation. It is Possible that Shakespeare wants us to interpret Falstaff as some sort of Lord of Misrule, a figure of irrepressible energy and joyousness in life who exists as a counter to the necessary order and stability in political society. And it may well be the case that Falstaff’s theatrical origins include many such figures such as the Kings of the Harvest Festivals where the rules of order are temporarily suspended in the name of communal celebrations free of normal restraints. But we must be careful not to get to emotionally involved with Falstaff, because if we do, we will fail to take account of his more corrosive qualities. For Falstaff does not represent the temporary overthrow of traditional order in the name of communal celebrations. His attitude includes also a deep scepticism which undercuts all value, and which therefore makes any form of shared life in a peaceful community impossible. The fact that Shakespeare chose to cast Falstaff as a knight particularly brings out this point. He is a member of the upper class, responsible for law, order, and good government. His subversive qualities would be far less powerful, were he simply a fat common layabout. But he has the same rank as, Sir Walter Blunt, and is entitled to join all the commanders in the consultation with the rebel leaders before the battle and, as a knight, has the right and the responsibility to take command over the common men whom he presses into the king’s service. Shakespeare therefore deliberately portrays Falstaff in this manor to challenge the audience’s perceptions and offers a more corrosive ironic counterpoint throughout the play. This quality is most evident when we explore the theme of honour. Shakespeare deliberately contrasts Hotspurs traditional concept of honour with that of Henry IV. Henrys sense of military honour permits him to have several other knights dress up in his royal armour and impersonate him on the battlefield, so that his enemies will wear themselves out chasing and fighting the wrong person. From Henry’s point of view, this is clever military strategy, an efficient policy at work; from Hotspur’s point of view it is a denial of what true honour requires, which is not something politically efficient but something deeply personal, a manifestation of one’s true character. From Falstaff’s point of view, all honour which requires one to run the risk of losing one’s life is absurd. In fact, any sense of honour which holds one back from seizing a good opportunity to enrich oneself is merely an empty word, to which he is not prepared to pay attention. Therefore S hakespeare uses Falstaff as a counterweight between the two. When we enjoy Falstaff’s actions in the tavern, Shakespeare also wants us to see how, out of this approach to life, his attempt to cheat the hostess out of money, his conduct with the conscript soldiers, and his mutilation of Hotspur’s body follow quite consistently. These actions complicate our response to him. In a stable society, such actions would seriously prejudice our opinion of the fat knight. But in this play, our judgment is made much more difficult, because Falstaff’s actions are, in some respects, not all that different from what others in the play are doing on a much bigger scale. Falstaff may well be abusing the king’s press, but Henry is forcing people to dress up and be killed on his behalf, to uphold his claim on the throne, which he won by rebellion and murder. Falstaff mutilates Hotspur’s dead body, but Worcester and Prince Hal bring about Hotspur’s death. Falstaff may rob the traveller at Gadshill, but others have stolen or are planning to steal the entire kingdom. In a world where the leaders hold no regard for morality in their pursuit of power and manipulate language to suit their political purposes, Falstaff’s actions appear less reprehensible than they otherwise might. If the king and the lords are lying, stealing, and deceiving, why shouldn’t he? At least the scale of his operations is much smaller. Moreover, Shakespeare portrays him as quite candid about what he is doing and does not attempt to justify his actions as somehow morally defensible (except in mock justifications which parody the official language of the court). In fact, his impersonation of them, his appropriation of their high-toned language for satiric purposes, reminds us constantly of the hypocrisy of their special pleading. He has a capacity to bring joy to others, to make them laugh, to inspire their affections, in a manner quite impossible in the royal court. That’s why the presence of Falstaff is much more subversive than a sentimental picture of him might suggest. He candidly acknowledges what he does and why he does it and our knowledge of what is happening on the larger scale doesn’t give us the solid assurances we need to deal with Falstaff as we might wish. Shakespeare uses Falstaff as a manifestation of ones self. An appropriate counterweight used to encourage us to question the morality of others in the play and maybe even the morality of our own society.