Sir John Falstaff is an essential character in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I.
Through such a character, readers are able to identify Prince Harry’s true motives and
persona i.e., he is a touchstone for the heir of England. Falstaff’s presence is also
necessary for the developing plot that centers on the eventual coronation of Prince Harry.
King Henry needs an heir to his throne but his son, Harry, is anything but fitting for such
a title, at the play’s onset. Eventually, it is gathered that Harry is not as wild and
dishonorable as he is acting, and this is mainly due to his interactions with the essential
Falstaff. Falstaff is within the presence of the Prince in nearly every scene of the play and
their witty back-and-forth…show more content… Goldman, in support, renders Falstaff as vital. The ever-
present Falstaff’s ‘fatness’ is often mentioned throughout the scenes he is in. Goldman
analyzes that this fatness, is not only in regards to his physical, big belly, but is
descriptive of his personality, too. Falstaff as a character is very animated and loquacious.
His personality encompasses the room when he is speaking. Goldman says, “we love him
[Falstaff] for the way he stretches the limits of his situation and gets away with it; it is an
aspect of his fatness” (216). Falstaff always stretches the truth and the environment he is
in to contain his big personality. There is essentially no circumstance where he lands
himself in trouble, even though he is a man that never abides by the laws of his society.
His friendship and witty banter with the Prince is always pleasant and comedic. Goldman
expresses that due to this interaction, Falstaff has earned the affection of readers and his
absence, in the end of the “Boar’s Head Tavern Scene,” contributes to readers realizing
this affection. In the scene, Falstaff proceeds to fall asleep, behind the arras, and Prince
Harry convinces the Sheriff that Falstaff is not in the tavern. Goldman says the episode…show more content… Falstaff’s
character masters the art of entertaining the readers of the play. His stories are cause for
laughter and when left without him, when he sleeps, the reader’s mind can trail back to
English matters because it is not occupied with Falstaff’s personality. In his absence, he
is surely missed but both on stage and off, he is able to make readers think about the
ideologies he is alluding to in his rather long, almost obnoxious speeches. In support,
Goldman relays that while Falstaff is asleep, he is, for the first time, exposed and
unprotected to his environment, and indifferent to crisis (217). Falstaff begins to
represent the readers’ “sensuality and impulse to anarchy” (217). His temporary absence
also makes readers realize that times are going to change in England. Falstaff will not be
left delivering his absurd speeches, being jolly and irresponsible all the time. He is,
shortly, going to get exposed, on the battleground, because as other men of England, he
must go and fight in the impending war. There is a chance that Falstaff may not make it
out of the war alive, and the realization that he may forever be absent after that, is