The Character of Falstaff in Henry IV
None of Shakespeare's plays are read more than the first and second parts of Henry IV. Particularly in Henry IV Part I, Shakespeare writes chronologically historical and interesting to follow events. The reader follows the chain of events with devotion and content eager to find out what happens next. Even though the hero of the play is Prince Henry, or Hal as we know him, the reader may find themselves more focused on Falstaff, one of the other major characters that Shakespeare created for comical relief. He was a witty, self-conscious, self-centered companion of the Prince. King Henry even criticized his eldest son for keeping company with such a low man. Even though Hal is the hero of the play both in both the tragic and the comic part, Falstaff is a main character to focus on in Shakespeare's Henry IV Part I.
The Prince is a character of many qualities both good and bad. He is a man of great abilities with violent passions as Samuel Johnson had noted in his The Plays of William Shakespeare. Johnson also stated that Hal's actions are wrong and even partially wicked and I would have to agree with him on that.( Johnson 234 ) To prove my point and to justify Johnson's I would have to refer to the scene after the Boar's Head Tavern. The crew decides to play a game of robbers and Hal along with a companion in turn decide to rob Falstaff himself for the fun. They do so and therefore leave the man of his dignity. However, it can be argued that Falstaff set himself up for such a cruel joke, he even boasted about how he fought off the masked robbers who, as he found out later, were no other than the Prince himself along with a companion. Where, as the reader knows, he...
... middle of paper ...
...eader will enjoy is Falstaff. He is a self-centered man concerned with his own desires with little care or regard for others. Many critics agree that he was put in the play for comical relief and he serves thispurpose nicely. Finally, it can be said that Falstaff highlights the play and gives the viewer the pleasure of following a character of such personality and wit.
WORKS CITED
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. H.C. Robinson's Memoranda Henry IV, Signet Classic, pp. 236-237.
Goldman, Michael. Shakespeare and the Energies of Drama Henry IV, Signet Classic, pp. 260-261.
Johnson, Samuel. The Plays of William Shakespeare Henry IV, Signet Classic, pp.234- 235.
Kahn, Coppelia. Man's Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare Henry IV, Signet Classic, pp.262-266.
Wilson, John Dover. The Fortunes of Falstaff Henry IV, Signet Classic, pp.238-243.
Every year, there are about 100 million Sharks killed, ultimately for its commercial success. Their fins are used as the main ingredient for a dish so-called Shark soup. However, many are unaware of the actual importance of Sharks' existence on Earth. They do a number of things to control and balance aquatic life down below, which in return affects how we live on the surface. Sharks have existed in our world for over 400 million years, if they were to suddenly disappear for industrial purposes, much problems will be encountered throughout the world. We must preserve the lives of Sharks, for many reasons most importantly that shark hunting is morally wrong, it may provide economic failure in a given time, and it may serve a critical unbalance of a healthy environmental state.
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
Louise-Philippe to take the throne. This left Tocqueville in a crisis, with his father in a loss of position, as well as his own career in a precarious position, ...
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
Looking at an overview of Falstaff, he has traits that of a villain, yet in King Henry IV, he is arguably one of the most beloved character, responsible for comedic relief. However I believe this is Shakespeare making a statement, and masking it behind humour. You see, it can be said that Falstaff is a politically driven character, in which everything he does is with purpose, whether that be financial gain or obtaining power. His relationship with Hal was for him to gain favor, once Hal became king. He acts as a great contrast to Hal, as throughout the play, Hal grows and changes stepping up to expectation and embodying a just and righteous ‘man’, so to speak. Falstaff’s character, however remains stagnant, barely changing throughout the play. Even his final actions in the play claiming to have killed Hotspur was with the intent of gaining rewards and power. So why is Falstaff, a character with many negative traits, made to be so likeable?, and Hal a man who is supposedly our beloved hero seen as a rebellious child for half the play? It could be Shakespeare making a comment as to how in politics, you never truly understand a person and their true intentions. Take the quote from Act 4 Scene 2 Line 56 :
Sharks have also been subjected to medical research, games and competitions, jewellery, souvenirs and cosmetics. We need to take into consideration that sharks play a vital role in the natural world that we live in. it is imperative that we look after these majestic creatures and ensure they remain protected. We need to be aware of the dangers of sharks, swim in protected areas where there are shark nets, and do not swim after dark in the sea (especially not alone) as the sea is the sharks home. Humans should also be wearing wet suits as protection in the ocean. The sea is where they live, they swim freely and they eat – they do not particularly target humans but rather prey on food that is available to them in their habitat.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to America, he hoped to acquire a better understanding of the principles of democracy that the young country was exhibiting. Tocqueville had noticed his native country France slowly but surely moving towards those democratic standards He saw that over the past 700 years events seemingly beyond anyone’s control had been driving the nation towards that specific form of government. He believed that eventually the rest of France and the rest of the Western World would follow at least the principles of equality shown in the New World. However, he also noted that there were certain impediments slowing down the change to democracy. Tocqueville did not think that democracy was the right form of government for every
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
Falstaff is considered more boisterous than Oldcastle had been. Shakespeare originally had the name of Sir ...
The character Sir John Falstaff played a crucial part in Shakespeare's Henry IV. Falstaff portrayed a side of life that was both brutal and harsh. This was important because, as Falstaff was, all the other main characters in the play were Nobles. Unlike Falstaff, the other nobles in the play acted as nobles. Falstaff, on the other hand acted more like the lower class people. In doing this he portrayed the thoughts and feelings of the lower class people. As he portrayed the lower class people, Falstaff brought the reader to think about the difference between a noble and lower class people. This was because Falstaff contrasted well with the nobles and brought out new aspects of the themes that Shakespeare experienced during his life. Some of these views brought out be Falstaff were quite harsh, in comparison to the accepted views of the time. To help balance the harshness of his views, Falstaff was very good natured and invoked laughter in the reader.
A. New breakthroughs are occurring everyday in the medical field involving the uses of sharks.
“Hamlet is another of the great creations of tragic poetry…What is it that inhibits him in fulfilling the task set him by his father’s ghost?...Hamlet is able to do anything—except take vengeance on the man who did away with his father and took that father’s place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed wishes of childhood realized. Thus the loathing which should drive him on to revenge is replaced in him by self-reproaches, by scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally no better than the sinner whom he is to punish.”- Sigmund Freud
The social differences in France were very unreasonable. People openly argued that “social differences should not be defined by law, as they were in the old regimes order” (2). In France, much of the inequality came from the social class system. It led to angry peasants and tons of revolting. This could have been avoided if France maintained equality for all estates, as it would have been rational. In addition, the clergy and nobles were given many rights which “included top jobs in government, the army, the courts, and the Church” (109). This was very biased as they were able to get the highest jobs, not because they earned it, but because of their social stature. Meanwhile, commoners or bourgeoisie, were not granted those jobs even if they had the ability to do them. This caused much of the third estate to become mad which led to uncivilized manner in France. If the government had just given equal rights and granted jobs by merit opposed to social class rankings, there would have been less drama between the estates and everything would have been