Key Words 4

Introduction 5

Chapter 1 The Chosen Scapegoat 8

A. Hal and His Ambition 8

B. The Necessity of the Banishment 11

Chapter 2 Falstaff — A Follower at Lost 12

A. Religious Background 13

B. Falstaff —A Follower Goes Astray 14

C. Falstaff Struggling between the Old and the New 15

Chapter 3 Falstaff— A Political Sacrifice 16

A. Falstaff—The Subversion of Honour 16

B. Falstaff—Blind in Politics 17

C. Falstaff—A Destined Sacrifice 19

Conclusion 21

Work Cited 23

Introduction

Shakespeare has long been the focus of critics in English Studies.  As Shakespeare was “not of an age, but of all time” (Jonson, 287), along the history there have been much criticism on Shakespeare’s works and characters he created. The figures in his works are vivid and lifelike, representing the common characteristics of all human nature as they are in essence derived from life.  This essay mainly discusses the character, Sir John Falstaff, in Shakespeare’s historical play--the first part of Henry IV. 

Of all the characters created by Shakespeare, Falstaff is one of the most representative. As Berry Ralph (25) put it, he is the “most perfect dramatic character”. He comes to the stage as a supporting actor, but enjoys the limelight over the leading characters in the play. Over the past four hundred years, studies never stop on this fat, drunken rogue who has a talent for making everyone around him laugh. Since the debut in the theatre for the first time, Falstaff has been frequently talked and cited. He is probably one of the principle reasons for the popularity of the play Henry IV. It is said that Queen Elizabeth was pleased by this character in the two historical plays and ordered Shakespeare to write another play about Falstaff in love and that caused the birth of The Merry Wives of Windsor. Whether the story is true or not, there is no doubt that the creation Falstaff is a success. Such a character is bound to win critics’ attention. Over these centuries, the attitude toward this fat old knight has always been controversial: some critics love him; others despise him; some others hold complex feelings on him. 源'自-751;文,论`文'网]www.751com.cn

In the 18th century, Samuel Johnson pointed out the paradoxical relation to Falstaff. When speaking of the “unimitated, inimitable Falstaff”, he describes him as a figure compounded of “vice and sense” who might be “admired” but not “esteemed.” In 1769, Elizabeth Montagu responded similarly to him that mingles moral rejection with human acceptance in An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare .

Affected by humour, wit and vigour of Falstaff, many critics showed their affection to the old knight. Many of them believed that theses characteristics of Sir John make this character so acceptable to society that there is no necessity for him to acquire other virtue. As early as 1777, Maurice Morgann undertook a defence of Falstaff in an essay called “The Dramatic Character of Falstaff” . In this long essay, the Shakespearean literary scholar not only proposes that Shakespeare never meant to make Falstaff for a coward, but he also argues that Falstaff has the true courage. He suggests that Falstaff’s character “is a high degree of wit and humour, accompanied with great natural vigour and alacrity of mind”. In nineteenth century, A.C. Bradley continued this argument. Bradley maintains that Falstaff is not a coward, even though his behaviour sometimes appears cowardly. In the essay “The Rejection of Falstaff”, Bradley (264) calls Falstaff and Hamlet “men of genius”, since no one in the play understands these two characters. He also explains that although Falstaff is a drunkard, a thief, a liar, and a coward, he is also humorous, jovial childish, and free living—these qualities make people love him. Critics love Falstaff, some even sentimentalize and even idealize him. Harold C. Goddard (175) regards Falstaff as the third candidate for the role of “hero” in the play Henry IV. Aware of Goddard’s passion for Falstaff, Professor Harold Bloom (“Introduction”) states his fondness for Sir John in a more sensible way.  In The Invention of the Human, Bloom (44) considers Falstaff Prince Hal’s spiritual father. 莎士比亚《亨利四世》福斯塔夫被抛弃的命运(2):http://www.751com.cn/yingyu/lunwen_56235.html