Present the opinions of the critics on the character of Falstaff

Quite often issues scholars bring up in their critical essays are not so easily observable for an ordinary reader. Moreover, it is quite obvious that critics' judgments of one problem may differ as they approach it from different angles. That is just the case with the character of Falstaff.

One of the most common opinions formulated by the critics is that of Falstaff being Coward. To a great extent it is true, as the major impression we get in the number of scenes in the play is that he is constantly "involved in circumstances of apparent dishonour; and we hear him familiarly called Coward by his most intimate companions." [1] An ordinary reader might easily notice that whenever Falstaff finds himself in the situation of danger he does not behave in the way his profession of a soldier imposes on him. As far as I am concerned, Falstaff's escape from his companions at Gads Hill, or the way he performs at the battlefield are convincing enough to call him Coward and dishonourable man.

However there are critics who cannot agree with such statement easily. One of them is Maurice Morgann, whose views presented in An essay on the Dramatic Character of Falstaff (1777) were commented on by Bradley, the most authoritative of contemporary defenders of his ideas, in the following way: " there is no other more beautiful piece of Shakespearan critics in the world" [2] [ translation mine ]. For Maurice Morgann it is not so obvious that Falstaff was a coward. To his mind "Shakespeare never meant to make Cowardice an essential part of his constitution".[3] What is more, he really proves that the problem lies with the reader that only gets "mental Impression" and thus "misleads the Understanding". Falstaff's feelings at various moments, Morgann states, are incomprehensible for someone who was not present at the very moment of their appearance.


"The Understanding seems for the most part to take cognizance of actions only, and from these to infer motives and character; but the sense [...] proceeds in a contrary course; and determines of actions from certain first principles of character, which seem wholly out of the reach of the Understanding." [4]

In his extremely positive judgment of Falstaff, Morgan goes even further, saying that his behavior was not a result of lack of Courage, but rather his Wit. In his view it is rather transparent that in the battlefield Falstaff is guided by his mind, not the fear. However, the setback again is with the reader who is " maliciously determined that he shall have no courage at all." [5]

Perhaps the best way I could comment on his opinion is with the words of another well known critic Samuel Johnson, who put his view on Morgan's attitude to Falstaff this way: "[...] as he has proved Falstaff to be no coward he may prove Iago to be a very good character." [6] I really could not agree more, which is quite safe as majority of critics share Johnson's view on Falstaff's cowardice. In the eyes of J. Dover Willson, Morgan's opinion is based upon his unwillingness to see the facts. He pointed that it is just impossible for the reader to see the character in any other way than that of him being chicken. They are able to notice nothing but the fat, old man running and roaring out of fear, exhibiting terror at the Gad's Hill scene. Moreover, readers unlike critics do not have the "opportunity of reading both parts of the play and meditating upon them" [7]. The reason for such elevated opinion of Falstaff, borne by Morgann and another critic - Bradley, is as Willson explains: "[...] they cannot admit such conduct, because it lowers Falstaff in their esteem"

Another main role applied to Falstaff by the critics is based on the interpretation of his interrelation with Prince Hal, and the power of his influence on Prince Hal and his career. In the eyes of some scholars Falstaff is responsible for Hal's misbehavior having a very strong control over him, in the point of view of others that poor fat man is just a source of information about the human nature for the Prince who needs it to manipulate people later on. Some of the critics see a tutor in Falstaff, who "offers the Prince Hal not only the symbolic freedoms of youth, but also a chance to practice at being human" [9]. For Smallwood "Falstaff represents the irresponsible, amoral alternative" for the finally victorious and honorable Prince.[10] Thanks to that old man, the reader is able to see possible option of Hal's future. Following that idea, Quiller-Couch gives Falstaff the name of "the ensnarer of youth" [11], which later was explored by another critic to finally find Falstaff Gluttony - a thief and tempter to wine and women having his origins in morality play. To give the reasoning, John W. Shirley explains, as it was him to put that idea forward, that "white - bearded Satan" was recognized by the Elizabethan audience as a source of idleness, and lechery, whereas Hal being his victim - the youth in danger[12]. All these ideas are transparently reflected in the play and one should not argue that even if sometimes the thesis are contradictory, they are not true. However in that interrelation between Hal and Falstaff there is one thing one cannot easily detect when reading. As Rosalie L. Colie noticed, the figure of the sponger, fat man, and parasite was introduced by Shakespeare to " give this English princeling (Hal) depth of character" [13] as Falstaff could have acted as a foil to a prince. It was done to present from what bottom the reformed prince emerged as the prodigal son.

Luckily enough, there are critics who do not only dwell on Falstaff's cowardice and his destructive influence on Prince Hal, but also notice other traits of his character. An established scholar E.P. Vandiver calls him comic parasite [14], which is quite unconventional as other critics, noticing Falstaff 's fool's features, do not combine them with his quality of sponger. Enid Welsford, for example, sees nothing wrong in his comic behavior, and observes no negative connotations:
"under the dissolvent influence of [the Fool's] personality the iron network of psychical, social, and moral law, which enmeshes us from the cradle to the grave, seems- for the moment- negligible as a web of gossamer. The Fool does not lead to revolt against the law; he lures us into a region of the spirit where, as Lamb would put it, the writ does not run." [15]

Another supporter of the view, Tom White, calls Falstaff "Shakespeare's greatest comic character" [16], but at the same time he does not ignore the serious touch that he provides, as every proper clown should. Nevertheless, for White it is evident that "if Falstaff spent more time in making thoughtful comments he would be less amusing; if we felt sorry for him we would not laugh as much as we do." [17] The comic character of Falstaff can also be seen as a creator of the separate comic world, "which provides a constant alternative to the events of history." [18] That view of R.L. Smallwood attaches special significance to the Character. Through it a constant struggle between the harsh, political, time-dominated world of Prince Hal and the comic, timeless, sensual world of Falstaff is introduced. The outcome of that conflict is inevitable as it is history play and not comedy. [19]

However, we can see Falstaff as funny for the pure sake of being amusing without any further connotations. He just provides a good sense of humour, which is perhaps the most evident for an ordinary reader who is mainly interested in the fist impression of the play he gets. I personally could not agree more with this way of understanding Falstaff, which was, in my opinion, excellently brought up by Hazlitt:

"good- humour and good- nature; an overflowing of his love of laughter and good-fellowship; a giving vent to his heart ease, and over-contentment with himself and others." [20]

___________________________________
1. Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Parts 1and 2. A selection of critical essays., An essay on the dramatic character of Sir John Falstaff, M. Morgann, 1777; edited by G. K. Hunter, MACMILLIAN 1992, p. 26
2. The Scottish Historical Review, A. C. Bradley, 1904. p. 291. see: Szekspir Dramaturg Elżbietański, Henri Fluchere, PIW, 1965. p. 188
3. Ibid, (fn. 1), p. 25
4. Ibid, (fn. 1), p. 27
5. Ibid, (fn. 1), p. 42
6. Life of Johnson, Boswell, 1783.
7. The fortunes of Falstaff, J. Dover Willson, Cambridge University Press, 1964. p.45 - 46
8. Ibid.
9. Studying Shakespeare's Use of Genres, Rosalie L. Colie, 1974. see: Studying Shakespeare, ed. by John Russel Brown, Macmillan, 1990. p. 116
10. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies [ Shakespeare's use of history, R.L.Smallwood ], edited Stanley Wells, CUP, 1992. p. 156
11. Shakespeare's Workmanship, Quiler-Couch,1918. see: Henry IV. Introduction, Arden, p. 41
12. see:: Henry IV. Introduction, Arden, p. 41-42
13. Studying Shakespeare's Use of Genres, Rosalie L. Colie, 1974. see: Studying Shakespeare, ed. by John Russel Brown, Macmillan, 1990. p. 114
14. The Elizabethan Dramatic Parasite, E.P. Vandiver, SP, 1935. p. 32
15. The Fool, Enid Welsford, 1935. p. 317
16. Henry IV. William Shakespeare, Tom White, Heinemann Ltd, 1975. p. 11
17. Ibid.
18. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies [ Shakespeare's use of history, R.L.Smallwood ], edited Stanley Wells, CUP, 1992. p. 156
19. Ibid.
20. Characters of Shakespeare's plays, Hazlitt works ed. by A.R.Waller and A.Glover, 1902, p. 278
 

Opracowanie: Justyna Kopycińska

Wyświetleń: 2775