Falstaff's Relevance in Henry IV Part I

Questioning Falstaff’s Role in A Shakespearean History Play

Dec 8, 2008

This article examines W.H Auden's opinion that 'the world of historical reality...is not a world which [Falstaff] can inhabit' in Shakespeare's Henry IV Part I.

Beginning with the assumption that a Shakespearean History's concern is to dramatically chronicle a segment of history, there are a few instances where Falstaff might be considered integral in Henry IV Part I.

Falstaff's Role as Representative of Common Folk

Falstaff acts as a foil to King Henry, and their duality is representative of a contrast between their two social classes. King Henry represents a court that is concerned about order and their mandate to rule, while Falstaff represents a lord of misrule, caught up in reveling and entertainment. How both of them exert a fatherly sort of influence on Hal leads to considering Hal's character development to become a king.

Falstaff's Role in The Character Development of Hal

Henry IV Part I is taken from the period where King Henry IV’s power over England is waning, and Hal is in progress to take over as king by Henry V. Falstaff might be considered part of his education, which is necessary for his development prior to becoming king.

Critic Marjorie Garber observes that Hal is seen as a student of language: ‘I am so good a proficient in one quarter of an hour that I can drink with any tinker in his own language during my life.’ The rough prose that Hal masters is a synecdoche of a King’s understanding of his people in order to rule them well, harking back to lessons from Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Therefore Hal, recognizing himself as a sun, only waiting for the right moment before he breaks through ‘the foul and ugly mists /Of vapours that did seem to strangle’, might regard Falstaff as an integral stepping stone to his own development.

Falstaff Renders the Rest of Henry IV Comparatively Irrelevant

While it might be acknowledged that Falstaff has a role to play to the dramatic conventions, the depth of his character, surpasses the rest of the characters and result in the paling of significance. Harold Bloom is among those, that seeing Falstaff as the focus of Henry IV, gives the opinion that the collective name of ‘Henriad’ a misnomer: ‘We do not need Henry V, and he does not need us.’

Falstaff’s outshining presence might hence be seen as stifling the dramatization of characters such as the conflict between Hal and Hotspur. Their rivalry should have been concluded when Harry kills Hotspur, who rues the 'proud titles thou hast won of me.'Instead, Falstaff comically rises from apparent death, and promptly steals the show from both of them, insisting 'If your father will do me any honour, so; if not, let him kill the next Percy himself.' This best represents how Falstaff's drowns out of the other characters when he fills far more than what might be expected.

Falstaff is Part of a Cast of Characters

Perhaps a way to resolve this apparent conflict which weakens the play, is to re-examine the assumption that a history play should rightfully focus on its period of history. Instead, it might be understood as a drama with a focus for aesthetic value.

For Mark van Doren at least, the play has a greater end then as a page for Falstaff: ‘nothing that [Shakespeare] wrote is more crowded with life or happier in its imitation of human talk.’ This might be understood by examining Henry IV Part I with a circumspective view of how all its characters are distinct, yet come together within the play.

The copyright of the article Falstaff's Relevance in Henry IV Part I in Shakespearean Theatre is owned by Jing Heng Fong. Permission to republish Falstaff's Relevance in Henry IV Part I in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.