The Character of Falstaff in Henry IV Essay

This speech occurs towards the end of the play and does not make a positive impression on the newly-virtuous Hal, but in previous moments the Prince seems at least to play along with Falstaff's definition of honor being, in essence, an empty value belonging only to the dead. Falstaff's concept of honor shapes Hal's personality early in the play when he has not yet acquiesced to his royal role as heir apparent, but the question that is raised in the early, rakehell descriptions of Hal is the possibility that he is merely playing a role and ingratiating himself superficially with Falstaff. This seems likely, increasingly so as the play goes on, as Hal tells his father that he will “hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord,/ Be more myself,” indicating that there is perhaps more to Hal’s sense of honor and duty than appearance belies (3.2.92-93). However, whether Hal is playacting or being true to himself in his early interactions with Falstaff, there is no doubt that the general populace and the King in particular believe that Hal has no honor to speak of, and is in effect living Falstaff's notion of the “true” nature of honor.

Falstaff is a tavern haunter, who partakes in the ìdrinking of old sackî (I.ii.4), lying, stealing, and thinks of honor as merely ìa wordî (V.ii.74). Although Hal enjoys the company of Falstaff, it is clear by his soliloquy in Act I, scene ii, that he intends to reform himself and act as a true prince: ìreformation, glittering o'er my fault, Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes, Than that which hath no foil to set it off, I'll so offend to make offence a skill, redeeming time when men least think I will (I.ii.9).î This shift in character is exemplified in the final battle, where Hal makes the chivalrous gesture of offering to ìTry fortune with [Hotspur] in a single fight (V.i.74).î

According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Indeed, very few people have this quality, the playwright William Shakespeare being one of them. In many of his plays, "Henry IV, Part One" among them, Shakespeare juxtaposes different worldviews, ideologies, and even environments. His characters usually provide a clear example of a split among them in one of many perspectives. One of his characters in "Henry IV"—Falstaff—is first seen as an endearing, uproariously funny scoundrel and later reveals himself more of a lowlife with his view of honor—he seems

Shakespeare's good characters, in the play King Lear, are considered good because they are loyal even when they are disguised from or unrecognizable by those to whom they owe loyalty. In addition, their loyalty does not waver even when they are banished or mistreated by those to whom they are loyal. Cordelia, Edgar and Kent are all characters that exemplify this goodness and unwavering loyalty.

Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either

Although King Henry and Falstaff are extremely different characters, both do act as father figures in Hal’s life with Falstaff as a surrogate father and King Henry as Hal’s birth father. With King Henry, this fatherly relationship emerges as one of blindly scolding and ordering around his son, an example being when the King criticizes Hal’s friends, “rude society” (3.2.14). The relationship with Hal and his surrogate father, Falstaff, though is much more relaxed with Falstaff teasing Hal, by touching on Hal’s slight insecurity of taking care of his princely duties, calling Hal “true prince” (2.4.106). Although both these relationships are very different in how relaxed they are, there is a similarity of King Henry and Falstaff acting as fatherly figures in Hal’s life.

Hotspur and Hal both view honor as something to be strived for; however, Falstaff has completely lost sight of the meaning of the word. In his speech about honor fallstaff talks about how honor is just a word, just air coming out of someone's mouth. He believes that honor only comes in death and since the dead cannot see or hear it is useless. Because he has lost sight of the meaning of honor, he fails to act ethically and behaves in the manner of a criminal and a coward. We see Falstaff rob, not pay what he owes (specifically at the inn), and misuse his commission as an officer. Before

Have you ever read something that didn't make any sense to you? Well that happens to almost everybody when they read Shakespeare. While Michael Mack gave a speech to incoming college freshmen telling them that Shakespeare is remarkably difficult to read he makes his point stand out even better. Mack develops an effective argument that explains to the readers that just because you may not understand something at first doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. He learned this through his use of past experience of working with Shakespeare’s work, and appeal to audience.

Furthermore, Shakespeare gives the audience the reason that Hal acts this way: after Hal is left alone, he speaks his true mind, explaining that

Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play. Through characterization Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play Hal has

King Henry V, is one of the only successful monarchs in Shakespeare’s plays. He displays great strength and intelligence. King Henry V is capable of uniting all of his people in his St. Crispin’s Day speech as they prepare to go to battle. The troops were greatly outnumbered and believed they had no chance at winning. But King Henry makes them feel like they are part of something important, and by doing this he motivates them to fight their hardest.

The King complains that ‘riot and dishonor’ stain the brow of his son whereas Hotspur is the theme of honor’s tongue (Wells 141). Henry uses the successes in war of Hotspur, "Mars in swaddling clothes," as a rod for Prince Hal’s back (Wells 143), accusing his son of being unfit to inherit the crown. To many critics, Hotspur is immensely attractive and rather comical in his impulsive impetuosity–"he that kills some six or seven dozen Scots for breakfast, washes his hands, and says to his wife, ‘Fie upon this quiet life, I want work’" (2.5.102-6). Yet, this commitment to bright honor is a dangerous obsession preoccupying Hotspur so much that he is blind to all else. To Hotspur the more dangerous and perilous a situation, the more desire he has to throw himself helplessly into it. To him there are no consequences; he sees no danger. All Hotspur can see is the possibility of achieving great honors– "Doomsday is near, die all, die merrily" (4.1.134). Hotspur’s life is no more than a military commitment; he desires only to gain future glory, whether he wins or loses, lives or dies.

The relationship between Hal and Falstaff, however, is perplexing. Hal is either using Falstaff to serve his ends and when he does not need him anymore he totally discards him or he truly loves the man but lost all hope in reforming him. Prince Hal used to put up with Falstaff, covering him, paying his bills and tolerating his lies, but if this is the price that

  In Shakespeare's Henry IV Part One, the characters' many different conceptions of honor govern how they respond to situations.  Each character's conception of honor has a great impact on the character's standing after the play.  For instance, Falstaff survived because he dishonorably faked his own death, and his untrue claim that he was the one who killed Hotspur may get him a title and land.  On the other hand, Hotspur lies dead after losing a duel for honor.  Hotspur, who is in many ways the ideal man by the standards of his time, is killed by his lust for honor.  In creating Hotspur, Shakespeare has created a variation on the tragic hero of other works: the stubborn tragic hero, who, dying

Shakespeare deals with a parent-child relationship in the historical plays of Henry IV Parts One and Two in the characters of Henry Bullingsworth (Henry IV) and his son Hal (Prince of Wales, later Henry V). The fact stands clear in the development of the son, Hal: the son's success in life is not dependent on his relationship to his father politically, but success is demonstrated when there is a realization of both parties on the level of parental love. Hal is not living up to his name, but also to blame in his father's failure to love. Our discussion is based solely on the text itself, based primarily on three main dialogues between Hal and his father.