Falstaffs role transcend that of a buffon in henry IV Essay

Falstaffs determination undoubtedly transcends that of a buffoon however Falstaff is withal portrayed as an anarchic spirit, ready to defy any rules in order to foregather his own appetites. Falstaffs extrovert character therefore has an inevitable push on Hals later decisions. Shakespe atomic number 18 portrays Falstaff as an enormous paradox. He is a wide man, who is so quick witted and so deft at manipulating speech that he remains etern onlyy elusive. He is quick to use others and has no sense of h mavensty, yet he gives and inspires great affection in those around him. He is a relatively old man, yet he refuses to admit the fact. He is a knight of the realm, yet acknowledges no sense that being a knight requires of him any decorum, loyalty, or respectable behaviour. He is an enormously egotistic man, however he captures out of others some of their best qualities of wit, good fellowship, and conversation.It is feasible that Shakespeare wants us to interpret Falstaff as some sort of Lord of Misrule, a figure of irrepressible energy and joyousness in life who exists as a counter to the necessary order and stability in governmental society. And it may well be the case that Falstaffs theatrical origins accommodate many such figures such as the Kings of the Harvest Festivals where the rules of order are temporarily suspended in the name of communal celebrations free of customary restraints. But we must be careful not to get to emotionally involved with Falstaff, because if we do, we will fail to take account of his more virulent qualities. For Falstaff does not represent the temporary overthrow of traditionalistic order in the name of communal celebrations. His attitude includes also a deep incredulity which undercuts all value, and which therefore makes any form of shared life in a peaceful community impossible.The fact that Shakespeare chose to cast Falstaff as a knight particularly brings out this point. He is a member of the amphetamine clas s, responsible for law, order, and good government. His subversive qualities would be far less powerful, were he simply a fat common layabout. But he has the uniform rank as, Sir Walter Blunt, and is entitled to join all the commanders in the consultation with the grayback leaders before the battle and, as a knight, has the right and the tariff to take command over the common men whom he presses into the abilitys service. Shakespeare therefore deliberately portrays Falstaff in this manor to challenge the audiences perceptions and offers a more corrosive ironic counterpoint end-to-end the play.This quality is most evident when we explore the theme of honour. Shakespeare deliberately contrasts Hotspurs traditional concept of honour with that of Henry IV. Henrys sense of military honour permits him to flip several other knights dress up in his royal outfit and impersonate him on the battlefield, so that his enemies will wear themselves out chasing and competitiveness the wrong person. From Henrys point of view, this is clever military strategy, an cost-efficient policy at work from Hotspurs point of view it is a denial of what true honour requires, which is not something politically efficient unless something deeply personal, a manifestation of aces true character. From Falstaffs point of view, all honour which requires one to run the risk of losing ones life is absurd. In fact, any sense of honour which dribbles one back from seizing a good opportunity to enrich oneself is nevertheless an empty word, to which he is not prepared to pay attention. Therefore Shakespeare uses Falstaff as a counterweight between the two.When we enjoy Falstaffs actions in the tavern, Shakespeare also wants us to see how, out of this approach to life, his attempt to cheat the stewardess out of money, his conduct with the conscript soldiers, and his mutilation of Hotspurs body follow rather consistently. These actions complicate our response to him. In a stable society, such actions would sternly prejudice our opinion of the fat knight. But in this play, our judgment is make oft(prenominal) more difficult, because Falstaffs actions are, in some respects, not all that different from what others in the play are doing on a much bigger scale. Falstaff may well be abusing the kings press, but Henry is forcing people to dress up and be killed on his behalf, to sanction his claim on the throne, which he won by rebellion and murder.Falstaff mutilates Hotspurs dead body, but Worcester and Prince Hal bring about Hotspurs death. Falstaff may nobble the traveller at Gadshill, but others have stolen or are think to steal the entire kingdom. In a world where the leaders hold no regard for morality in their pursuit of power and keep in line language to suit their political purposes, Falstaffs actions appear less miserable than they otherwise might. If the king and the lords are lying, stealing, and deceiving, why shouldnt he? At least the scale of his ope rations is much smaller. Moreover, Shakespeare portrays him as quite an guileless about what he is doing and does not attempt to justify his actions as in some way morally defensible (except in mock justifications which parody the official language of the court).In fact, his impersonation of them, his appropriation of their high-toned language for satiric purposes, reminds us constantly of the hypocrisy of their special pleading. He has a capacity to bring joy to others, to make them laugh, to inspire their affections, in a manner quite impossible in the royal court. Thats why the presence of Falstaff is much more subversive than a sentimental picture of him might suggest. He candidly acknowledges what he does and why he does it and our knowledge of what is happening on the larger scale doesnt give us the solid assurances we take on to deal with Falstaff as we might wish.Shakespeare uses Falstaff as a manifestation of ones self. An curb counterweight used to encourage us to que stion the morality of others in the play and maybe even the morality of our own society.