John Falstaff

This page is about the Shakespearean character. See also Verdi's opera "Falstaff".

Sir John Falstaff is a fictional character who appears in three plays by William Shakespeare primarily as a companion to Prince Hal, the future King Henry V. Round and glorious, tradition holds that Shakespeare wrote the part for his second comedian, a fat man, John Heminges, who played a bold, bawdy humor of a John Candy sort. An alternative theory is that Falstaff was written for Will Kemp, the clown of Shakespeare's company. The original actor was later succeeded by John Lowin, another portly comic actor. Flush with flatulent humor, Falstaff still managed to embody a kind of depth common to Shakespeare's tricky comedy. In Act II, Scene III of Henry V, his death is described by the character "Hostess", possibly the bar-lady Mistress Quickly, who describes his body in terms that echo the death of Socrates.

Appearances

He appears in the following plays:

He is mentioned in Henry V but has no lines, nor is it directed that he appear on stage. However, many stage and film adaptations have seen it necessary to include Falstaff for the insight he provides into King Henry V's character. The most notable examples in cinema are Laurence Olivier's 1946 movie and Kenneth Branagh's 1989 movie, both of which draw additional material from the Henry IV plays.

Orson Welles's Chimes at Midnight (1966) compiles the two Henry IV plays into a single, condensed storyline, while adding a handful of scenes from Richard II and Henry V. The movie, also known as Falstaff, features Welles himself in the title role.

Falstaff (1893) is also the title of Giuseppe Verdi's last opera, with a libretto by Arrigo Boito. It is mostly based upon The Merry Wives of Windsor.

Falstaff is also mentioned in The Tragically Hip song "Fiddler's Green". Recently, the Gus Van Sant film, My Own Private Idaho, offered a version of the two parts of Henry IV; in it Falstaff is Bob, a derelict and petty thief. Novelist Robert Nye has a novel entitled Falstaff.

Character

What makes portly Sir John so entertaining? How is it, when his actions would repulse many in both a modern and medieval context, we find ourselves so attracted to this lying tub of lard? Speculation over the years has produced many possible answers, one no more likely than the next. Whether or not the Queen of England truly requested "Merry Wives" for herself because she was so fond of the "huge hill of flesh" (Henry IV pt I, Hal, Tavern Scene), most do find some sort of affectionate connection. Possibly his openness in his crimes, his lack of loyalty being so apparent — essentially his frankness (not so much honesty) in life, and his grinning self-determination, self observance.

At best, it can be said that Shakespeare's Falstaff reaches beyond merely making the audience laugh. “He is aware that life is a charade” and is markedly responsible for his situation. He besets our hearts, yea deeper still, to our diaphragms. We are his. He has been too great a humoristic character to forfeit all good impressions within the length of one play.

(MacLeish, Kenneth. Longman guide to Shakespeare’s characters. Harlow: Longman, 1986. 87-88)

Falstaff is a central element in the two parts of “Henry IV,” a natural portion of their structure. Yet he does at times seem to be mainly a fun-maker, a character whom we both laugh with and laugh at, and almost in the same breath. Nothing has helped more to give this impression than the fat knight’s account of the double robbery at Gadshill.

Falstaff's character is necessary to Hal's character development just as Hotspur's temperament is necessary to his. Falstaff's wit, humor and amusing antics are needed to develop Hal. He helps us relate to Hal and his decision. We know people of all types of character and personality in our lives. They influence our thinking and decisions. So it is also necessary for Hal. Whether Falstaff is only a coward and glutton, or a person who has an "amusing" way of expressing his deeply felt personal and political beliefs is a matter of individual interpretation.

Origins

Falstaff was originally named 'Oldcastle' in the first performances of the play. The character was apparently based on Sir John Oldcastle, historically known to be Prince Hal's companion. However, Oldcastle was unlike Falstaff in many ways; in particular, he was a Lollard who was executed for his opinions, and was revered by many Protestants as a martyr. During the first performances of 1 Henry IV, protests from Oldcastle's descendants — the influential Cobham family — forced Shakespeare to change the name. The new name 'Falstaff' is derived from Shakespeare's earlier play, Henry VI, part 1, in which there is a cowardly character based on the medieval knight Sir John Fastolf (who was also a Lollard). Changing a few letters gave Shakespeare the name by which his invention is known today. Worried, perhaps, that this change would not placate his detractors, Shakespeare made a direct comment on the situation, in the epilogue of 2 Henry VI:

If you be not too

much cloyed with fat meat, our humble author will

continue the story, with Sir John in it, and make

you merry with fair Katharine of France: where, for

any thing I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat,

unless already a' be killed with your hard

opinions; for Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is

not the man.

The character and deeds of Falstaff have very few similarities with those of his real-life eponym. Shakespeare's apparent desire to burlesque such heroes of early English Protestantism is one reason why some scholars believe he may have been a closet Catholic.

There was a historical Sir John Fastolf who fought at the Battle of Patay against Joan of Arc. This correlates to the setting of Henry VI, Part I. The real John Fastolf became the scapegoat of this major English defeat, losing his knighthood as punishment. There is no direct evidence that he acted improperly at this battle. His other actions as a soldier had earned him wide respect.