Falstaff's Preoccupation Of The Truth In Henry IV

preoccupations of our time and place. Whenever people attempt to enter the minds of an earlier time, they inevitably do so by distorting the lens of the basic cultural perspectives.
Henry IV frequently draws attention to critics who argue about the existence of various versions of the past events. Characters can inevitably recreate the past in the context of present desires[CITATION Wil12 \p 101 \l 1033 ]. For example, an angry Hotspur reworks Richard II’s deposition into a shameful and an unjust act so that Richard can turn out as a sweet and lovely rose and not a canker Bolingbroke. Henry, on his part tells a different when describing the “skipping king” Richard. Nonetheless, the most obvious retelling in the play is Falstaff’s spectacularly overstated interpretation of the Gadshill robbery. Similar to a game of Chinese whispers, the particulars of the robbery rapidly fly away from the truth with each narration. When Hotspur becomes disgusted at Glendower’s fantastic account he advises, “Tell the truth, and shame the devil.” Despite this statement, the truth is one of the rarest commodities in the world of this tragedy. The
battlefield of Shrewsbury, for instance, is filled with sham kings, suggesting the veiling that has become customary for Henry IV. Moreover, the details are prone to treachery, most noticeably in the failure of Worcester and Vernon to deliver the king’s offer before the battle. The first soliloquy of Prince Hal is to misrepresent himself continuously to everybody and more than once he finds himself constrained to create a lie for the sake of Falstaff. Falstaff, of course, uses the act of lying stylishly that in the play he is the only person that seems the most honest[CITATION Jam991 \p 63 \l 1033 ]. At least, he finds using this virtue in the play an intolerable burden. The emphasis on the elusive nature of the truth is one of the ways through which the play involves its audience in its attempt to help in the interpretation of the historical events. The struggles that take place in Henry IV can be explained through many sides, thus, enabling many possible explanations of actions and events to the contemporary evidence. The play itself can be best described as a type of counterfeit history because the actors are not real kings or corpses. Such knowledge plays a huge role in haunting the realms of the play reminding the readers of this play that it is far from history. Moreover, the distance makes solving of this play even harder than most people think[CITATION Jam991 \p 71 \l 1033 ]. It is difficult to comment on Shakespeare’s portrayal of Henry as a character. Holinshed stated that the young Henry was focused on remaking his image following his rise to power. He banished his misruly mates of dissolute order and life and grew into a pious and somewhat dour ruler. However, the prince-gone-wild character of Henry IV appears more a popular tale than truth. In fact, it might have more to do with the political differences between the crown prince and his father. For example, the tennis ball scene is a pure invention while the war Henry battled against France was based on commercial interests and conflicts[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. The historical accuracy is Henry IV does not only end on him but also extends to his children and grandchildren. His son Henry V, the former prince of Hal is also portrayed. He is described as a leader who forgo his youth to adopt a pious and to some extent sanctimonious leadership. He is described as a popular hero but also an unusually indifferent general. He was described in this manner because despite the glorious wars he won, most of them were largely undeserved victories[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. The fact that he left the country in a bad situation than he found does not also help his case. His son, Henry VI, is even rated lower than his father is.
His loss to France really put a big blemish on his record. He is also dismissed as an almost pathetically led king who lacked the nous in political judgment. Edward IV, on the other hand, is described as a decent enough ruler who grew prematurely aged by drink and debauch and opened the way for usurpation for the malevolent Richard III. On the controversial issue regarding Richard III’s wickedness, Norwich disagrees with those stating that he was a much-maligned emperor, stating that he was a ruler devoid of principle and conscience and would do anything to satisfy his political ambitions[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. Norwich further alludes that there is little doubt in Richard III’s role in the murder of Edward V, his 12-year-old brother and the rightful heir to his
throne. Only few historians today would endorse the view of the War of Roses as depicted by the historians of the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The Lancastrian roses used in the fifteenth century wars was invented during the reign of Henry VII’s reigns meaning that the depiction of their use in the play during that period is fabricated. Moreover, Henry VI was not quite the saint Shakespeare creates him to be. He bent countless other characters out of shape to fit into his allegorical plays[CITATION Dan131 \p np \l 1033 ]. Therefore, it must be considered that the majority of issues written by Shakespeare were an allegorical reference to his own times in the 1590s, that is, towards the end of the sixteenth century. It means that he did not experience most of these issues but rather wrote the plays by basing his argument on the ideas of others. Given his era was an age of dynastic insecurity, foreign menace, as well as noble provocation, he had to base his plays with these issues in his mind. The distortion emanated from the fact that Shakespeare attempted to fit the past rulers into the prevalent system of governance in England. For example, Richard II was portrayed in the image of Elizabeth I given that at that period the earl of Essex were revolting against her system of governance[CITATION Dan131 \p np \l 1033 ]. The big question, however, is the accuracy of the English plays made by Shakespeare. According to Norwich, the various liberties used by Shakespeare in explaining the essentials of historical truth are invariably right. Even though the Henry IV plays written by Shakespeare while still in his twenties shows less conscientiousness in comparison to his later plays in relation to the historical record, divergences tend to result from the playwright’s ambition to compress the vast majority of historical events over a vast sweeps of time into a practicable and convenient drama[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. Because of this, different events have been conflated, chronologies violated and at times the entire episodes ignored. Another reason that forces Shakespeare to depart from the truths has to do with objections from the court censor according to Norwich. In the past, there was a shortage of characters, hence, it necessitated the elimination of minor characters as well as the attributions their actions had on other people. Simple carelessness and the need to make the plays more dramatic forced Shakespeare to make these changes, hence, changing the whole dynamic of the play. For example, Norwich proclaims that Shakespeare idealized the historical John of Gaunt by transforming him into a grand old man of his time to fashion a “dramatically necessary” foil to the insipid Richard II[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. Moreover, he asserts that Shakespeare converted the unstable Hotspur into a young man with dazzling brilliance, consistent courage, and volcanic energy because in his eyes he was a potential star. From the above assessments, it is easier for readers to disagree with some of Norwich’s assessments of the Shakespearean plays. For example, when he turns on his subject into literary criticism, his subjects appear deeply suspect especially in the phrases he uses to dismiss Falstaff as a drunken poltroon who deserves what he gets. When he uses such an analogy, he bases his critiques on the works of Shakespeare and not his analogy meaning that they share similar ideas. However, such dubious passages have little in detracting readers from Shakespeare’s overall account[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. While certain issues might be based on falsified truths, the Shakespearean plays especially Henry IV offers much insight into the historical happenings during that era.

Works Cited
Jones, Dan. "Shakespeare: did he get his history right?" 25 June 2013. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/william-shakespeare/10106855/Shakespeare-did-he-get-his-history-right.html. 4 May 2016.
Kakutani, Michiko. "'Shakespeare's Kings': Shakespeare and Historical Accuracy." 11 April 2000. Book of the Times . https://partners.nytimes.com/library/books/041100norwich-book-review.html. 4 May 2016.
Lowers, James K. CliffsNotes on Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1. London : Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1999. Print.
Shakespeare, William. King Henry IV, Part 1. Hamburg: Tredition Classics, 2012. Print.