Jack Falstaff Analysis
Falstaff: Why We Love Plump Jack
In William Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part One, Sir John Falstaff is a fat, drunken, middle aged man with a lousy sense of honor. He becomes somewhat of a surrogate father to Prince Hal, all the while teaching the young prince his ways of partying and drinking through whatever life brings him, which does not earn him any respect along the way. Along with the immense time that the two spend together, Falstaff’s influence on Prince Hal wreaks all sorts of havoc on Hal’s relationship with his actual father, King Henry IV, leading the king to find a surrogate son himself. On top of all of this, Falstaff is very different from any of the other characters in Henry’s world, who care about honor and their public personas. Though Falstaff seems like an absolute mess, he is one of the most popular characters that Shakespeare has ever created. His appeal comes because he is a contrasting character to all of the others and is also more than just comedic relief to the audience: he comes across as a genuinely good man and, on top of that, Falstaff is relatable in the sense that he represents the good, the bad, the lazy, and more in …show more content…
every audience member.
Though at first glance he seems like a substandard person, Falstaff is one of the most well-liked characters that Shakespeare has ever created. Shakespeare compels the reader to connect and empathize with the old, fat, man, which leads to them wanting more of him. Readers enjoy Falstaff because it seems that he isn’t all bad, and he helps move along the storyline of Prince Hal becoming honorable. One literary journalist writes that “The whole development of Hal is made neutral and understandable by the influence of Falstaff” (Tolman). This argument can be supported with several different examples throughout the play. Prince Hal spends his days in the tavern keeping bad company instead of in the palace with his father, but the audience does not mind because Falstaff is entertaining, and that seems to be a good enough excuse for the prince’s actions. Later, when King Henry forbids Hal and Falstaff from spending time together, the audience questions the king’s decisions. It is easy to think that if Falstaff had been allowed to talk, that he would have won the king over with his humor and his good nature. It is this humor and good nature that help to make the audience sympathize with Sir Jack, after all. Regarding the reader’s attraction to Falstaff, one literary journal simply states: “He appeals to our hearts, yea deeper still, to our diaphragms” (Tolman). This attraction exists even though Falstaff does not follow the typical mold of Shakespearean characters.
Jack Falstaff’s opinions and his personality in general are very different than those of other characters in Henry IV Part One, and this is one of the reasons readers are fond of him. They like to see some variation from the cookie-cutter “good” character. Where others care about how they are viewed, Falstaff is just out having fun. One of the first times that the audience is introduced to Sir Jack in Henry IV Part One, he is planning a little robbery with the prince. When Hal starts to make a joke about how he has gone from “praying to purse-taking” (1.2.107), Falstaff tells him that it is simply his ‘vocation’ to steal and do what he wants to do. Falstaff inquires of his surrogate son, the prince: "Why, Hal, 'tis my vocation, Hal; 'tis no sin for a man to labor in his vocation?” (1.2.108-109). Where others care strongly about being honorable, Falstaff could not care less. He shows this indifference towards the end of the play when he rhetorically asks, “What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what is that honour? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? No” (5.1.132-138). In the midst of battle, while everyone else is fighting to defend their honor, Falstaff decides that it would be a good time to rant about the uselessness of honor. Although this is unexpected and at surface value, that unexpectedness makes the audience like Falstaff, that isn’t all. Falstaff’s argument also helps to pique the interest of the reader in Falstaff because it isn’t inconceivable. He may sound somewhat crazy when he just yells that “Honor is a mere scutcheon” (5.1.140) in the middle of the battlefield, yet honor, as characters like Hotspur would have it, is exaggerated and somewhat mistaken so Falstaff’s anger may not be completely uncalled for. This is just another factor that adds to Falstaff’s relatability and popularity with audiences over time-- he does seem to make some sense in his ramblings.
The biggest contributing factor to Falstaff’s popularity is the fact that readers can empathize with, and see parts of themselves in, the old, fat man. English journalist Theodore Dalrymple argues that “Falstaff appeals to us because he holds up a distorting mirror to our weaknesses and makes us laugh at them” (Dalrymple). This argument is not hard to understand and agree with. Throughout the play, Falstaff displays the reader’s own weaknesses in himself, however magnified they may be. One example of this is when Falstaff tells the tavern his tale of fighting off men in the woods, going from two men that he could see to many more, and fighting them in the pitch blackness of night. Sir Jack effectively tells the tavern-goers that the men in buckram suits who he fought grew in number from two, to four, to seven, to nine, up to eleven. One literary journalist writes of this scene, saying that [Falstaff] “surely did not expect them to believe him” (Tolman). In this scene, Falstaff is exaggerating the facts to appear greater, specifically braver and stronger, which is something that is human nature and easily relatable for readers. Even when this play was first being performed, viewers could identify with Falstaff. The majority of the people going to these plays were not princes and kings, they were normal people just trying to get through their day-to-day lives. Falstaff seems to have the capacity to identify with everyone who comes in contact with his story. Many factors have contributed to why Falstaff, Shakespeare’s comedic character in Henry IV Part One, has become so well known and well liked.
He creates a needed contrast from the other, more chivalrous characters in the play. He makes the reader laugh with his drunk, dishonorable lifestyle. He comes across as a good-natured man in the way that he makes Hal’s storyline more plausible. He really is essential to the storyline, though it may not originally seem so. Most of all, he represents the reader. There is some toned-down percentage of Falstaff in everyone, whether it be in his wit or his dishonesty or his laziness or his desire to find the easiest and most fun path out of life’s challenges. In the words of Falstaff himself, it if one was to “Banish plump Jack, [they would] banish all the world”
(2.4.497-498).
In William Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part One, Sir John Falstaff is a fat, drunken, middle aged man with a lousy sense of honor. He becomes somewhat of a surrogate father to Prince Hal, all the while teaching the young prince his ways of partying and drinking through whatever life brings him, which does not earn him any respect along the way. Along with the immense time that the two spend together, Falstaff’s influence on Prince Hal wreaks all sorts of havoc on Hal’s relationship with his actual father, King Henry IV, leading the king to find a surrogate son himself. On top of all of this, Falstaff is very different from any of the other characters in Henry’s world, who care about honor and their public personas. Though Falstaff seems like an absolute mess, he is one of the most popular characters that Shakespeare has ever created. His appeal comes because he is a contrasting character to all of the others and is also more than just comedic relief to the audience: he comes across as a genuinely good man and, on top of that, Falstaff is relatable in the sense that he represents the good, the bad, the lazy, and more in …show more content…
every audience member.
Though at first glance he seems like a substandard person, Falstaff is one of the most well-liked characters that Shakespeare has ever created. Shakespeare compels the reader to connect and empathize with the old, fat, man, which leads to them wanting more of him. Readers enjoy Falstaff because it seems that he isn’t all bad, and he helps move along the storyline of Prince Hal becoming honorable. One literary journalist writes that “The whole development of Hal is made neutral and understandable by the influence of Falstaff” (Tolman). This argument can be supported with several different examples throughout the play. Prince Hal spends his days in the tavern keeping bad company instead of in the palace with his father, but the audience does not mind because Falstaff is entertaining, and that seems to be a good enough excuse for the prince’s actions. Later, when King Henry forbids Hal and Falstaff from spending time together, the audience questions the king’s decisions. It is easy to think that if Falstaff had been allowed to talk, that he would have won the king over with his humor and his good nature. It is this humor and good nature that help to make the audience sympathize with Sir Jack, after all. Regarding the reader’s attraction to Falstaff, one literary journal simply states: “He appeals to our hearts, yea deeper still, to our diaphragms” (Tolman). This attraction exists even though Falstaff does not follow the typical mold of Shakespearean characters.
Jack Falstaff’s opinions and his personality in general are very different than those of other characters in Henry IV Part One, and this is one of the reasons readers are fond of him. They like to see some variation from the cookie-cutter “good” character. Where others care about how they are viewed, Falstaff is just out having fun. One of the first times that the audience is introduced to Sir Jack in Henry IV Part One, he is planning a little robbery with the prince. When Hal starts to make a joke about how he has gone from “praying to purse-taking” (1.2.107), Falstaff tells him that it is simply his ‘vocation’ to steal and do what he wants to do. Falstaff inquires of his surrogate son, the prince: "Why, Hal, 'tis my vocation, Hal; 'tis no sin for a man to labor in his vocation?” (1.2.108-109). Where others care strongly about being honorable, Falstaff could not care less. He shows this indifference towards the end of the play when he rhetorically asks, “What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what is that honour? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? No” (5.1.132-138). In the midst of battle, while everyone else is fighting to defend their honor, Falstaff decides that it would be a good time to rant about the uselessness of honor. Although this is unexpected and at surface value, that unexpectedness makes the audience like Falstaff, that isn’t all. Falstaff’s argument also helps to pique the interest of the reader in Falstaff because it isn’t inconceivable. He may sound somewhat crazy when he just yells that “Honor is a mere scutcheon” (5.1.140) in the middle of the battlefield, yet honor, as characters like Hotspur would have it, is exaggerated and somewhat mistaken so Falstaff’s anger may not be completely uncalled for. This is just another factor that adds to Falstaff’s relatability and popularity with audiences over time-- he does seem to make some sense in his ramblings.
The biggest contributing factor to Falstaff’s popularity is the fact that readers can empathize with, and see parts of themselves in, the old, fat man. English journalist Theodore Dalrymple argues that “Falstaff appeals to us because he holds up a distorting mirror to our weaknesses and makes us laugh at them” (Dalrymple). This argument is not hard to understand and agree with. Throughout the play, Falstaff displays the reader’s own weaknesses in himself, however magnified they may be. One example of this is when Falstaff tells the tavern his tale of fighting off men in the woods, going from two men that he could see to many more, and fighting them in the pitch blackness of night. Sir Jack effectively tells the tavern-goers that the men in buckram suits who he fought grew in number from two, to four, to seven, to nine, up to eleven. One literary journalist writes of this scene, saying that [Falstaff] “surely did not expect them to believe him” (Tolman). In this scene, Falstaff is exaggerating the facts to appear greater, specifically braver and stronger, which is something that is human nature and easily relatable for readers. Even when this play was first being performed, viewers could identify with Falstaff. The majority of the people going to these plays were not princes and kings, they were normal people just trying to get through their day-to-day lives. Falstaff seems to have the capacity to identify with everyone who comes in contact with his story. Many factors have contributed to why Falstaff, Shakespeare’s comedic character in Henry IV Part One, has become so well known and well liked.
He creates a needed contrast from the other, more chivalrous characters in the play. He makes the reader laugh with his drunk, dishonorable lifestyle. He comes across as a good-natured man in the way that he makes Hal’s storyline more plausible. He really is essential to the storyline, though it may not originally seem so. Most of all, he represents the reader. There is some toned-down percentage of Falstaff in everyone, whether it be in his wit or his dishonesty or his laziness or his desire to find the easiest and most fun path out of life’s challenges. In the words of Falstaff himself, it if one was to “Banish plump Jack, [they would] banish all the world”
(2.4.497-498).