Falstaff’s honor speech does not imply cowardice, rather it exemplifies the contrast between himself and King Henry IV. In King Henry IV part one, act 5, Fallstaff explains why honor is not an ideal he strives for. He says that honor drives him to battle and asks, if he dies for honor, what is the reward? Honor will not assist him if he is wounded, it is nothing but air, a word. It is only achievable through death, and it is useless to the dead. Therefore, in the upcoming battle Falstaff will not, as characters in heroic plays had done for centuries, sacrifice himself for love of country. He will instead look out for his own self interest, and attempt to earn acclaim from the actions of others. However, this does not make his character a …show more content…
One example of this is in Falstaff’s use of prose instead of rhyming iambic pentameter. When Falstaff speaks it resembles the way a commoner would speak, he uses small words in short sentences without the formal poetic style of King Henry. In his honor speech Falstaff conveys his message in choppy, conversational style, with no word longer than four syllables (“catechism”), and no sentence longer than eight words (“Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on?”) (Shakespeare 101). When King Henry speaks it is in iambic pentameter, he uses larger words, and more lofty subject matter. This divergence in speech style helps intensify the rhetorical divide between these two men, and remind the reader of their juxtapositional traits in the play. This questioning of what is actually important, physical needs or conceptual ideals, was relevant in Shakespeare’s time, and still is today. Living under Elizabeth I, the product of major religious upheaval, Shakespeare may have been disillusioned with the worlds of kings and queens of which he wrote. The belief in the importance of honor and reputation was still very popular during this time period, and in a play in which the entire plot revolved around these ideals Falstaff’s speech sticks out. This may have been a subtle critique of these values held so dearly by Shakespeare’s
The first influence that Shakespeare illustrates over Prince Hal is that of Falstaff, a fat old man who seems to spend his life in seedy taverns accruing massive amounts of debt. From his devious scheme to rob unknowing travelers at the beginning of the story to his diatribe on what honor is not, it is clear that Falstaff has a very distinct notion of his own personal honor, and he seems to be trying to project that same notion onto Hal; however, as Hal becomes closer to his father, Falstaff's honor becomes less appealing. Falstaff treats Hal and King Henry IV to his own personal code of honor-or lack thereof:
Humans are addicted to judging others on their first impression. Humans will never read into the book, they just look at the cover. Many people, both fictional and nonfictional can not be judged until you study them. Someone who first appears to be only comic relief, could end up to be a very important character. Sir John Falstaff is but one of these people. Falstaff's righteousness hides under his vocalization. John Falstaff's character is hard to understand without analyzing his words. He loves to play games with his speech. Falstaff tricks his audience with complex words and phrases. Often John would win over his opponent by tricking them into saying things that they did not mean or getting them to think that he is not that bad. Falstaff said this in Part I act II scene IV. "... A question not to be asked. Shall the son of England prove a thief and take purses? A question to be asked. There is a thing, Harry, which thou hast often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest. For, Harry, now I do not speak to thee in drink, but in tears; not in pleasure, but in passion; not in words only, but in woes also; and yet there is a virtuous man whom I have often noted in thy company, but I know not his name." In this passage, the Prince and Fastaff trade places in speech and try to make the other look dumb. Fastaff later goes on to say that this wonderful person that the King is talking about. The way Falstaff does this proves him to be very keen. He proves that even though he may look dumb, he will still put up a good fight. Falstaff is very bold about his thoughts and opinions. He stands out because he is not afraid to think his own way. While most people agree, because of the other people around them, Falstaff chooses to make his own decisions and think for himself. This is proven when Falstaff and the prince switch places in a verbal fight. Every one else in the book thinks of the Prince as a perfect young man because he is the prince, however Falstaff is too smart for this, he points out that the prince is a thief.
the lower class people. Falstaff did not hold the same view of honor as any
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 :
He is accepted for his faults and further appreciated for his humor. Once receptive to Falstaff’s follies, an underlying wisdom can be found. Shakespeare offers Falstaff as a guide to living beyond the confines of convention, out of all the order. Disguised in banter, Falstaff calls into question values of morality and nobility. His manner is harmless in both words and actions. Of all the loyalty and disloyalty that incites political turbulence in the play, Falstaff remains inert. He does not enact any cruel aggression in effort to achieve power. Nevertheless, Falstaff commits slight though significant transgressions against Prince Hal and aristocratic values. These transgressions begin in conversation and eventually result in Falstaff’s action on the
Stewart, J.I.M. Character and Motive in Shakespeare: Some Recent Appraisals Examined. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1966.
Watson, Curtis Brown. “Shakespeare’s Ambivalence in Regard to Christian and Pagan-Humanist Values.” Chapter Nine. Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1960.
Falstaff is a central element in the two parts of Henry IV, he is supports the structure of the play. Yet he does seem to be a mainly fun maker, a character whom we laugh with and laugh at. The perfect example for this was the fat knight's account of the double robbery at Gadshill. The part of plump Jack is joyously expanded and diversified, for the delight of men and the glory of, Shakespeare. It is plain that the role of Sir John is not restricted to what is indispensable to Shakespeare's main purpose. Falstaff lies at the very foundation of these plays, that it is a structural necessity.
During the Shakespearean era, obeying husbands and fathers was looked at so highly that it matched obeying the King of England; the uppermost pedestal was reserved for the Shakespearean man. Gender roles lead to the development of self-individualism which divided the men from the women by establishing a deep distrust of women into the men along with an authoritative dominance, and in hand locked women into a permanent submissive position. One of the most oppressed groups throughout history has been women, which were socially, economically, educationally and religiously oppressed during the time period of Shakespearean society. Social normality and political views has been throughout time, arguably the most extreme oppression enforcement over social outcaste subgroups. Society also held a strong grip on artists and the creative messages of the work that artist deliver to the world, which can depict a sometimes hidden, or subtle dropping of opinions of the hard hitting issues at hand during the present time period. Shakespeare is deemed as one of the greatest known writer’s in English history, not only because he was tremendously attentive towards the Elizabethan era and the diverse struggles that haunted the streets of England in everyday life’s routine, but because he did more than just take notice, as he acted upon the travesties he observed by weaving the representation of the world he came to know through his artwork, leaving the world with irreplaceable pieces of literature and insightful history of Shakespearean society.
In Shakespeare's Henry IV Part One, the characters' many different conceptions of honor govern how they respond to situations. Each character's conception of honor has a great impact on the character's standing after the play. For instance, Falstaff survived because he dishonorably faked his own death, and his untrue claim that he was the one who killed Hotspur may get him a title and land. On the other hand, Hotspur lies dead after losing a duel for honor. Hotspur, who is in many ways the ideal man by the standards of his time, is killed by his lust for honor. In creating Hotspur, Shakespeare has created a variation on the tragic hero of other works: the stubborn tragic hero, who, dying for his fault of honor, does not at last understand his weakness.
Falstaff’s blatantly honest soliloquy has provided the audience with a direct insight into his mind, and contrasts well with Hal and Hotspur’s speeches, in which their moral order and regard for honour is evident. Falstaff helps to show the change in Hal to the audience. Falstaff himself is no different to the Falstaff of Act 1, unlike Hal who has obviously undergone a great deal of change. Falstaff’s speech is highly typical of the tavern world’s way of thinking: straightforward, sometimes humorous, spoken in prose, and only the values of the tavern world taken into consideration, with no regard for such insubstantial, un-physical concepts as honour. In this way, and spoken directly to the audience, Falstaff effectively expresses his unashamed resolution not to submit to moral order.
In addition to adding an incredible amount to the language, Shakespeare’s work offered a reflection on the language itself through his use of iambic pentameter in his verse. Iambic pentameter is a style of poetic writing in which each line is ten syllables, alternating from soft to hard accents (five soft, five hard). Iambic pentameter captures the natural underlying rhythm in English speech. Some of Shakespeare’s most memorable lines have been written in iambic pentameter. For example, the opening line in one of Shakespeare’s most renowned plays, Romeo and Juliet, reads “Two households both alike in dignity” (I, i, 1).
In the tragedy Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare there are a numerous amount of events that either happened by chance or by choice that could have led to the deaths of both Romeo and Juliet. One character that perhaps played a role in the death of the two lovers was Friar Lawrence. In his speech to Romeo about growing up and becoming a man, Friar advised Romeo that if he wanted to be with Juliet he was going to need to man up.
Throughout the history of the world, honor has been an important part of life. In literature, as well, honor plays an important role in many plots and the development of almost any character. Shakespeare’s play Much Ado About Nothing is no exception. In this comedy about love and marriage, honor is revealed as the primary reason for many of the actions taken by several different characters. When Claudio breaks off his wedding with Hero, he does it because he believes she is not chastised as she claims to be and in being such, she would dishonor him as well as her father if the marriage were to proceed as planned. The play is an accurate depiction of the honor code and the different standards for men and women of the time in regards to honor and chastity.
The impeccable style and craft of Shakespeare’s writing has always been looked upon with great respect, and it continues to serve as an inspiration to writers and thinkers today even as it did when it was being first performed in London. Shakespeare’s modern audience, however, is far less diverse than the one for which he originally wrote. Due to the antiquity of his language, Shakespeare’s modern readership consists mostly of students and intellectuals, whereas in Shakespeare’s own time, his plays were performed in playhouses packed with everyone from royalty to peasants. Because of this, Shakespeare was forced to write on many different levels, the most sophisticated of which appealed to his more elite audience members, while the more straightforward and often more crude of which appealed to his less educated viewers, and the most universal of which still appeals to us.