Sir John Falstaff in Henry IV is one of the most scandalous and memorable characters in the entire Shakespearean canon. His charisma which even seduced Queen Elizabeth. In fact, the character of Falstaff inspired Shakespeare to write another play, The Merry Wives of Windsor, at the queen's request. Falstaff later became the subject of numerous operas, sculptures, films, symphonies and novels (Pilkington). His character is unlike any other character created by Shakespeare. From the moment the audience first meets the vilified knight, it is clear that Falstaff is a rowdy, talkative drunk, with few morals and no discernible sense of honor. It is unclear why so many people, including the Queen, have become attached to these bluster. troublemaker. In fact, Shakespeare exploited several characteristics of Falstaff while remaining true to his deplorable nature, which allowed Henry IV's audience to embrace him. Some of Falstaff's memorable traits include his propensity for words, his unconscious penchant for the selfish pleasures of life instead of the virtues, and his helplessness which inspires pity and consequently forces the audience to side with the scoundrel in certain situations . Even with Falstaff's negative traits, Shakespeare manages to make him a comic rascal that the audience can't help but develop a fondness for. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the Original Essay Falstaff's shortcomings often refer to his darker side. First of all, he's an unrepentant thief. In Act I, Scene II, Falstaff readily admits that purse snatching is his main source of income. When Hal says dryly that Falstaff has gone from being virtuous to being evil, Falstaff responds matter-of-factly, "Well, Hal, that's my calling." Hal, it is no sin for a man to work in his calling” (1.2.104-105). With such sarcastic and darkly humorous responses, Falstaff often inspires great audience reactions during performances of Henry IV. However, Falstaff's tendency to steal goes much further than noble women's handbags. In Act II, Scene II, Falstaff shows that he would even rob the king's men by planning and describing the theft at length. Shakespeare, however, makes this scene comical instead of shameful. Aside from Prince Hal deceiving Falstaff during the ordeal, Shakespeare leaves the victims of the theft anonymous, making it difficult for the audience to sympathize with their plight, despite being familiar with the thieves themselves. Furthermore, it is clear that although Falstaff commits many wrongdoings, he never intends to harm others. He is simply oblivious to the circumstances around him, seeing the world from a child's point of view. He naively believes that he has the right to take advantage of everything and everyone around him. The audience immediately realizes this through the mixture of Falstaff's innocent responses and his clumsy old age. After the failed robbery attempt and subsequent return to the tavern, Shakespeare provides insight into another of Falstaff's dastardly qualities: dishonesty. Prince Hal created Falstaff in order to elicit a few laughs at his expense, and Falstaff falls perfectly into the trap, describing how a troop of men fell upon the thieves when they were trying to steal the king's men. Falstaff boasts of his combat prowess, while Hal mocks him, clearly knowing the extent of his lies (2.4.). Yet Falstaff's attempt to pass himself off as competent by lying does not turn the audience against Falstaff. Instead, the comical and skillful handof Shakespeare makes the audience pity him as he tries to save face in front of the people who have made him a laughing stock. Pity is one of the central emotions that Shakespeare uses to align the audience with Falstaff, despite his many demonstrated flaws. Another example of this mechanism is when Hal and Falstaff stage a scene between Hal and his father, King Henry IV. Hal plays himself, while Falstaff plays Hal's father. Then Hal switches roles with Falstaff and pretends to be King Henry IV while Falstaff plays Hal. The exchange begins in a humorous tone, but when the two men switch roles, Hal begins to insult Falstaff with cruel blows against his honor and his disgusting personal habits (2.4.445-481). Falstaff tries to respond to Hal's insults, but it is clear that the old knight is outwitted in the conversation. As an observer, the audience finds it impossible not to feel sorry for the paunchy old man as he is verbally exposed in front of his friends. Again, even though his faults are listed, the audience hopes that Falstaff can restore dignity and humor to him. Sir John Falstaff's most questionable actions occur during the final battle at the end of the play. Falstaff pretends to be dead to survive the battle and hear Hal talk about him as if he were dead. He also desecrates Hotspur's body and claims to have killed the rebellion leader (5.4). These dishonorable acts are decidedly vile, but the manner in which the events occur is so comical that Shakespeare leaves the audience no opportunity to judge Falstaff's choices. Shakespeare uses humor and wacky action to keep Falstaff as a lovable scoundrel in [the audience's] hearts (Levenson). Another aspect of Falstaff's character that would have garnered approval from Elizabethan audiences is the fact that he is based on a real person. Sir John Oldcastle was a knight who actually fought against Henry V and was also a very popular MP. But after a brilliant military career, he was persecuted because of his religious beliefs, which were decidedly unpopular at the time. Oldcastle firmly believed in the teachings of Lollard, precursors of contemporary Protestantism. Although King Henry gave Oldcastle a chance to escape, the once-beloved knight was eventually arrested and executed for trying to start a rebellion against the king (Tuma and Hazell). An Elizabethan audience would have been very receptive to a character based on Oldcastle for several reasons. First, he was a popular knight when in favor of the monarch and served his country in many noble ways. Second, Queen Elizabeth, who had herself been raised in protest (Hickman), had made the Protestant faith acceptable during her reign and, as a result, it had become immensely more fashionable than Catholicism. Therefore, a character based on a man who became a martyr to a sect that had recently become popular in England would have been very well received by audiences of the time. Additionally, Falstaff's change in character from a respected knight to a cheerful and rebellious old man would have been seen as a kind of courageous mutiny against the intolerant monarchy. This would not have offended Queen Elizabeth, however, as she was a remarkably tolerant ruler compared to her predecessors, at least in the religious realm. Whether or not the audience or reader agrees with Falstaff's choices in Henry IV, Shakespeare made it almost impossible to dislike the happy-go-lucky knight with his comical antics and witty one-liners. Sir John Falstaff is another example of Shakespeare's gift for rhetoric and humor. It's a character 2009..