Sir John Falstaff in Henry IV is one of the most scandalous and memorable characters in the entire Shakespearean canon. His charisma that even ensnared 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 maligned knight, it is clear that Falstaff is a rowdy, loud-mouthed drunk with little morals and no discernible sense of honor and it is unclear why so many, including the Queen, have become fond of to this braggart. troublemaker. Indeed, Shakespeare exploited many of Falstaff's characteristics while remaining true to his deplorable nature, which ensured that Henry IV's audience would welcome him. Some of Falstaff's memorable traits include his penchant for words, his oblivious penchant for life's selfish pleasures instead of virtues, and his helplessness that 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 scoundrel 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Falstaff's flaws often reference his darker side. First of all he is an unrepentant thief. In Act I, Scene II, Falstaff readily admits that purse stealing is his main source of income. When Hal flatly says that Falstaff has gone from being virtuous to becoming a villain, Falstaff replies matter-of-factly: “Why, Hal, that is my calling. Hal, it is no sin/ for a man to commit himself to 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 far beyond the purses of noble women. In Act II, Scene II, Falstaff shows that he would also rob the king's men by planning and describing the robbery at length. Shakespeare, however, makes this scene comical rather than shameful. Besides the fact that Prince Hal deceives Falstaff during the ordeal, Shakespeare leaves the victims of the robbery anonymous, making it difficult for the audience to sympathize with their plight, while there is familiarity with the thieves themselves. Furthermore, it is clear that although Falstaff does many reprehensible actions, he never intends to hurt others. He is simply oblivious to the circumstances around him, seeing the world from a childish perspective. He naively believes that he has the right to take advantage of everything and everyone around him. The audience immediately grasps this fact through the mix between Falstaff's innocent responses and his awkward old age. After the failed robbery attempt and the subsequent retreat to the tavern, Shakespeare reveals another ignoble quality of Falstaff: dishonesty. Prince Hal has framed Falstaff to get a few laughs at his expense, and Falstaff falls perfectly into the trap, describing how large a troop of men fell upon the thieves as they tried to rob the king's men. Falstaff boasts of his fighting prowess, while Hal laughs at him, clearly knowing the extent of his falsehoods (2.4.). Yet Falstaff's attempt to appear competent by lying does not turn the audience against Falstaff. Instead, the skilled comic hand ofShakespeare 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 play out 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 on a humorous tone, but as the two men switch roles, Hal begins to insult Falstaff with cruel stabs at his honor and disgusting personal habits (2.4.445-481). Falstaff tries to keep up with Hal's insults, but it is clear that the old knight is outwitting the conversation. As observers, the audience finds it impossible not to feel sorry for the pot-bellied old man as he is verbally stripped naked in front of his friends. Once again, even as his flaws are listed, the audience hopes that Falstaff can restore his dignity and humor. 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 to hear Hal talk about him as if he were dead. He also desecrates Hotspur's body and claims to have killed the leader of the rebellion (5.4). These dishonorable acts are definitely evil, but the way events unfold is so comical that Shakespeare leaves the audience no chance to judge Falstaff's choices. Shakespeare uses humor and slapstick 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 had actually fought against Henry V and was also a very popular member of Parliament. After a brilliant military career, however, he was persecuted for his religious beliefs, which were decidedly unpopular at the time. Oldcastle was a firm believer in Lollard's teachings, which were a precursor to contemporary Protestantism. Although King Henry gave Oldcastle a chance to escape, the once-beloved knight was eventually captured and executed for attempting to start a rebellion against the king (Tuma and Hazell). Elizabethan audiences would have been very receptive to a character based on Oldcastle for several reasons. First, he was a popular knight who when in the good graces of the monarch and served his country in many noble ways. Second, Queen Elizabeth, herself raised Protestant (Hickman), had made the Protestant faith acceptable during her reign and, as a result, had become immensely more fashionable than Catholicism. Therefore, a character based on a man who became a martyr for the sect that had recently come into favor in England would have been very well received by audiences of the time. Furthermore, the change in Falstaff's character from a respected knight to a reveling and rebellious old man would have been seen as a sort of courageous mutiny against the intolerant monarchy. This would not have offended Queen Elizabeth, however, because she was an extraordinarily tolerant ruler compared to her predecessors, at least in the field of religion. Whether or not the audience or reader agrees with Falstaff's choices in Henry IV, Shakespeare made it almost impossible not to like the happy-go-lucky knight with his comic antics and witty rejoinders. Sir John Falstaff is yet another example of Shakespeare's gift for the 2009..