Falstaffs role transcend that of a buffon in henry IV Essay

Falstaffs role undoubtedly transcends that of a buffoon however Falstaff is in any(prenominal) case portrayed as an anarchic spirit, ready to defy any rules in differentiate to satisfy his sustain appetites. Falstaffs extrovert character and so has an inevitable affect on Hals later decisions. Shakespeare portrays Falstaff as an immense paradox. He is a huge man, who is so quick witted and so deft at manipulating language that he remains etern tout ensembley elusive. He is quick to use others and has no genius of honesty, yet he gives and inspires expectant affection in those around him. He is a relatively old man, yet he refuses to combine 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 selfish man, but he brings out of others some of their scoop up qualities of wit, good fellowship, and conversation.It is Possible that Shakespeare wants us to interpret Falstaff as some sort of Lord of Misrule, a habitus of irrepressible energy and joyousness in life who exists as a counter to the necessary order and stability in political society. And it may well be the case that Falstaffs theatrical origins hold 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 normal restraints. But we must be careful not to stand by to emotionally involved with Falstaff, because if we do, we will fail to take account of his more corrosive qualities. For Falstaff does not demonstrate the temporary overthrow of traditional order in the name of communal celebrations. His attitude includes also a deep scepticism 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 upper class, resp onsible for law, order, and good government. His subversive qualities would be far slight powerful, were he simply a fat common lay to the highest degree. But he has the same rank as, Sir Walter Blunt, and is entitled to collaborate all the commanders in the consultation with the rebel leaders before the battle and, as a knight, has the in force(p) and the responsibility to take command over the common men whom he presses into the world powers service. Shakespeare therefore deliberately portrays Falstaff in this manor to challenge the audiences perceptions and offers a more corrosive humorous counterpoint throughout the play.This quality is most evident when we explore the theme of honour. Shakespeare deliberately contrasts Hotspurs traditional apprehension of honour with that of Henry IV. Henrys sense of military honour permits him to have several other knights dress up in his royal armour and impersonate him on the battlefield, so that his enemies will wear themselves out ch asing and fighting the wrong person. From Henrys point of view, this is clever military strategy, an businesslike policy at progress to from Hotspurs point of view it is a denial of what true honour requires, which is not something politically efficient but something deeply personal, a manifestation of ones 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 holds one back from seizing a good opportunity to enrich oneself is merely an vacate word, to which he is not prepared to pay attention. Therefore Shakespeare uses Falstaff as a counterweight between the two.When we adore 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 quite consistently. These actions complicate our response to him. In a stable society, such actions would seriously prejudice our opinion of the fat knight. But in this play, our thinker is made much 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 denture. Falstaff may well be abusing the kings press, but Henry is forcing people to dress up and be killed on his behalf, to uphold his withdraw 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 rob the traveller at Gadshill, but others have stolen or are preparation to steal the entire kingdom. In a world where the leaders hold no regard for morality in their pursuit of power and manipulate language to suit their political purposes, Falstaffs actions appear less reprehensible than they otherwise might. If the king and the lords are lying, stealing, and deceiving, why shouldnt he? At least the s cale of his operations is much smaller. Moreover, Shakespeare portrays him as quite candid about what he is doing and does not attempt to disengage his actions as somehow 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 incident on the larger scale doesnt give us the solid assurances we need to deal with Falstaff as we might wish.Shakespeare uses Falstaff as a manifestation of ones self. An appropriate counterweight used to encourage us to question the morality of others in the play and maybe even the morality of our own society.