Falstaff - functions in the play

As many critics noticed Falstaff has a wide variety of functions in the play. I am going to examine those, which are possible to identify for an ordinary reader from his speeches and from what other characters say about him.

The first moment Falstaff appears in the play is in the second scene together with prince Hal. From the very beginning his role is defined. He functions as Hal's companion and the one who triggers all the wicked actions. Falstaff seems to feel equal, as he is sure of the authority he has in the eyes of young prince, who acts at his instigation. After Hal calls him names he is not afraid to reply: "Indeed, you come near me now, Hal" (act I, sc. II, 14). Poor Falstaff is unaware of the role he really has in prince's life, who uses that parasite to create an image of himself as sinful, immature and good-for-nothing. Hal needs such overdrawn picture to manipulate future subjects, to make them feel sympathetic and pity for the Biblical prodigal son. Still Falstaff, unacquainted with Hal's plans maintains his function as a tutor of evil, being proud of his mighty power over the Prince. When he encourages Hal to take part in the robbery he uses arguments that are unthinkable in such circumstances. Falstaff appears to be very tricky as he proves that as for the future king it is indispensable for him to participate: "There's neither honesty, manhood nor good fellowship in thee, nor thou camest not of the blood royal, if thou darest not stand for ten shillings." (act. I, sc. II, 143-145). For the Prince such argumentation is convincing enough to draw him into the scheme.

For the reader it is really hard to perceive whether all Hal does is derived from his own free will, or is it Falstaff being example for him. To my mind Hal's deeds are combination of different factors, however fat man's role in it is of primary significance. Nevertheless, in his hypocrisy Falstaff dares to blame the prince for all his wickedness, not himself:
"Before I knew thee, Hal, I knew nothing: and now am I, if a man should speak truly, little better than one of the wicked" (act I, sc. II, 97-99).


But is Falstaff only a source of evil, does not he any positive traits or constructive influence both on Hal and the play itself? In my opinion we can also see him acting as Prince's conscience. Quite often Falstaff behaves not only like a parasite making use of Prince's money, but also as a real friend, wanting to warn Hal and make him notice things that he does not pay attention to. He realizes that in his position of heir to the throne of England, he cannot expect to have a quiet and peaceful reign in the country full of enemies: "Though being heir apparent, could the world pick thee out three such enemies again, as that fiend Douglas, that spirit Percy, and that devil Glendower? Art thou not horribly afraid? Doth not your blood thrill at it? (act. II, sc. IV, 362-366)"

Falsstaff's interest in Hal's future however, does not only result from his concern with fatherland's prospect but from his pure care of his private matters. From his point of view, if the Prince is prosperous he should expect prosperity for himself. That "vanity in ears" ¹ as the Prince calls him, is unaware of the fact that his acquaintance with Hal is only temporary, that once taking the rule over the Prince may reject him and his company. Hal can be expected to follow the example of his father - the king, who after overtaking the throne forgot of his roots and began looking down on those who helped him achieve the mean goal derived from sick ambition and desire for power. The king however, is not condemned for his deeds. The only criticism that appears in the play is from the mouth of Falstaff. Although he does not realize that, acting out the part of the king in the scene with Hal, Falstaff functions as mocker of monarch's stolen and artificial royalty, as in the lips of such wicked character sovereign's style of speech sounds ridiculously and insulting.

For me however, Falstaff's main role in the play is to provide humour. The reader laughs with and at him. His whole constitution is ridiculous. Being fat, unshaped and not very handsome, and wicked he thinks high of himself, condemning all but not himself:

"there lives not three good man unchanged in England, and one of them is fat and grows old, God help the while, a bad world I say." (act. II, sc. IV, 127-129)

"I could have crept into any alderman's thumb-ring: a plague of sighbing and grief, it blows a man up like a bladder." (act. II, sc. IV, 326-328)

"A goodly portly man, i'faith, and a corpulent: of a cheerful look, a pleasing eye, and a most noble carriage; ... there is a virtue in this Falstaff: him keep with, the rest banish."
(Falstaff pretending to be King Henry: act. II, sc. IV, 416-425)

Falstaff never misses any occasion to praise himself, he sees nothing wrong both in his posture and behaviour, which one may regard as a main source of comedy.

At such occasions we are not only amused, but we also feel pity for that pathetic "trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, yhat stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that roasted Manningtree ox with the pudding in his belly ..." ² as the Prince 'kindly' calls him.

But there is no getting around the fact that, the full picture of Falstaff as comic character is exposed when he tells a story of his heroic deeds at Gad's Hill. In my opinion it is just that scene, where his comic function is best shown. Reading of Falstaff's superhuman actions and knowing the facts, one cannot remain serious. Describing the fight Falstaff changes the data all the time, as the number of combatants kept increasing.

"... but if I fought not with fifty of them I am a bunch of radish: if there
were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack,
then am I no two-legg'd creature." (act. II, sc. IV, p. 182-185)

So as one may notice, Falstaff has many functions in the play, both of positive and negative origin. But to my mind, his function as comic is the most transparent. It is obvious that, closer study of drama and the figure of Falstaff may reveal plenty of other significant details about the structure of that character. However, taking into consideration his nature one cannot limit his studies only to the first part of Henry IV, as John Falstaff takes part in many other Shakespeare's plays, showing different side of his complex nature each time, and therefore having diverse functions.

(I wrote this essay before reading any of the critical works, as I did not want to be influenced by any views. That is the reason why I did not give any footnotes.)
________________
1. Act. II, sc. IV, p. 448
2. Act. II, sc. IV, p. 443-447
 

Opracowanie: Justyna Kopycińska

Wyświetleń: 677