Falstaff: The Shakespearean Commentary on Human Nature

Transcription

1 Falstaff: The Shakespearean Commentary on Human Nature Falstaff emerges as one of the most comedic and memorable characters of William Shakespeare s 1 Henry IV, presenting dialogues with his peers full of wit and camaraderie. While his appearances in most cases yield rounds of laughter from the audience, the few key moments where his darker shades emerge brings the purpose of his existence into question. Falstaff s greedy nature and dismissive treatment of others suggests that he is Shakespeare s commentary on the insensitivity, greed, and self- preservation that are a part of human nature. Falstaff s insensitivity presents itself under the guise of comedy within the interactions with his peers, with many of his words actually being insulting rather than amusing. In Act 3.3, when inquiring on the theft of his ring, he says to the Hostess, There's no more faith in thee than in a stewed prune; nor no more truth in thee than in a drawn fox; and for womanhood, Maid Marian may be the deputy's wife of the ward to thee. Go, you thing, go (3.3.63). Falstaff s verbal abuse and ultimate dismissal of the Hostess, as a thing no less, may seem amusing from the audience s perspective, but at its core is a complete dehumanization of one of his peers. Despite the fact that this conversation continues in a lighthearted manner, Falstaff s insensitivity is easily mistaken for wit; these harsh words hold a very deep and scathing meaning in most other contexts, which is easily lost in the play s dialogue. Indeed, Harold Bloom holds Falstaff s language skills in the highest regard, stating, [Falstaff s] mastery of language transcends even Hamlet s, since [he] has absolute faith both in language and in himself. While Bloom may be right to praise Falstaff s language,

2 he does not acknowledge that many of his interactions with others characters - including Hal, Bardolph, and Poins - are quite harsh. Shakespeare uses Falstaff not only as a source of comic relief in the play, but also as a demonstration of the thin line between wit and insensitivity that humans tend to ignore; while the character s words are often taken lightly in the context of the play, they nevertheless reveal him to be a crude and thoughtless man. The motif of greed appears multiple times throughout the play, but mainly in the context of holding power the main conflict of the play revolves around who shall hold kingship over England. Falstaff s greed, however, is unique in that it is for money; while this in itself is not profound, it is a distinguishable desire in the context of other characters in the play. On the eve of battle, Falstaff speaks to the audience, saying, I have misused the king's press damnably. I have got, in exchange of a hundred and fifty soldiers, three hundred and odd pounds. I press me none but good house- holders, yeoman's sons; inquire me out contracted bachelors, such as had been asked twice on the banns; such a commodity of warm slaves, as had as lieve hear the devil as a drum; such as fear the report of a caliver worse than a struck fowl or a hurt wild- duck. I pressed me none but such toasts- and- butter, with hearts in their bellies no bigger than pins' heads, and they have bought out their services (4.2.71) Rather than prepare for war, Falstaff chooses to press good house- holders and yeoman s sons, those with hearts in their bellies no bigger than pins' heads, in order to make a profit rather than build up his platoon, which at the moment

3 is comprised of slaves and poor soldiers. This opportunistic money grab, however, goes further beyond than just an act of greed. Falstaff misuses the power placed in him by his superiors and exploits innocent people and their fear of war in order to gain money, while others, including Hotspur and Hal, prepare for the possibility of death. In addition, this also serves as poor preparation for the impending battle; the old knight essentially acknowledges the poor state of his scrawny soldiers and condemns his platoon to death, saying, Tut, tut; good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better: tush, man, mortal men, mortal men (4.2.71). Falstaff s insensitivity towards the fate of his soldiers corresponds to his greed for life and self- preservation, writing them off as food for powder and again dehumanizing a set of people he is responsible for. This vile behavior illustrates Shakespeare s use of greed in Falstaff s case; he aims to demonstrate its more far- reaching and dangerous effects on a situation with his thievery. As aforementioned, self- preservation guides many of the old knight s actions. His love for life often times manifests itself as a dehumanization of others and a groveling for money. Despite the behavior it produces, it also shapes his moral compass. In Falstaff s most famous soliloquy, he comments on honor, saying, Can honour set to a leg? no: or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. 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. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea, to the

4 dead. But will it not live with the living? no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so ends my catechism. (5.1.80) At this moment, Falstaff chooses life over honor, dismissing it as a trim reckoning and a mere scutcheon and criticizing its lack of practical use. While it may appear as an exposition of Falstaff s beliefs, the soliloquy reveals more of his character than it may initially seem. His dismissal of honor also is a dismissal of almost all of its components: integrity, self- esteem, pride, and respect. This strengthens the patterns of behavior Falstaff demonstrates throughout the play, as he rarely displays any of these qualities in his interactions with others or the audience (aside from his astounding confidence). His words suggest that the pursuit of life and the adherence to a strong, responsible moral code are mutually exclusive. Shakespeare uses Falstaff s commentary on honor to coalesce the different aspects of Falstaff s personality into a unified representation of the darker, dangerous side of human nature that, ironically, humans tend to ignore. In his analysis of 1 Henry IV, Jeremy Irons describes Falstaff as the soft edges to the plays backbone. Indeed, the old knight s crooked ways serves as the comic relief that makes him one of most beloved Shakespearean characters. However, it seems that Falstaff, rather than softening the play s intense plot, provides a serrated edge to the proverbial backbone. The crooked ways that seem amusing at first are truly Shakespeare s embodiment of the grotesque features of humanity, ways that work to entice Hal away from his responsibilities as the Prince of Wales. Emma Smith argues that Falstaff s portent stature; his

5 bombastic personality; and his desire to eat, drink, and have a good laugh symbolizes the whole world. While this view does hold some merit, it is not the merry nature of Falstaff that represents the whole world, but the crude, vile, dismissive aspects of his personality that manages to capture the components of human nature that appears worldwide. Falstaff is one of Shakespeare s greatest pieces of work not only because he is a character of wit, but also because he is a creature of pleasure and survival that manages to embody an entire side of human nature in a manner in which audiences, for centuries, have been able to comprehend in human form. Content (Clout) o Your provocative thesis is simply and clearly presented in the introduction. I m interested. o Your discussion of Falstaff s honor soliloquy might go further in showing how he blasts integrity, pride, and respect also. Organization (Clarity) o Style (Class) o serrated edge to the proverbial backbone fine word-smithing Conventions (Cleanliness) o clean What I like about this essay is that you go beyond registering your own distaste with Falstaff s objectionable moral character into the suggestion that Shakespeare is aiming for this judgment also. The essay also does a nice job here of keeping its singular focus and not trying to do too much; and it allows for an unambiguous conclusion as the reader finishes it up. See my comment above on Falstaff s honor soliloquy as an suggestion for improvement. Finally, your fine command of your own language comes in part from your fine command of the topic you re considering here. Strong work all around. AR A