The Evolution of Falstaff and his Popularity

In class, we’ve discussed the fact that Falstaff was Shakespeare’s most popular character in the time during which his story was written. When we read Henry IV, I understood that he was a very likable character, but could not see exactly what made him so popular. Once we read the second part of Henry IV, I began to understand people’s love for him a bit more and in Henry V, I’m as interested in him as those who were introduced to him in Shakespeare’s time were. I think he’s someone who, from a literary perspective, is very interesting to analyze. One can map out the ways in which he changes and grows over the course of the Henriad. His story is a truly tragic one, potentially more tragic than the characters of Richard or Henry IV. We watch him climb to the top, only to be thrown back down to where he began. This, however, isn’t necessarily something you get from first glance at the Henriad. I wondered, then, what made Falstaff so interesting to people who simply enjoyed watching Shakespeare. What caused them to fall so in love with Falstaff’s character?

After a bit of consideration, I realized that it’s likely that people appreciated Falstaff so much because they were able to relate to him. Most people who would see Shakespeare’s plays were of lower classes, like Falstaff. They probably spent their time with their friends in taverns like Prince Hal, Poins, Falstaff and the others. They’d see Falstaff being so close with a prince and possibly feel a bit more connected to the monarchy than they previously had. If not that, there’s a possibility they’d see Falstaff’s “redemption” when he becomes a knight with a sort of hope. If it’s possible for Falstaff to rise up like that, perhaps those watching these plays could as well.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

11 Thoughts.

  1. I think you’re right in saying that the audience would have connected to Falstaff, especially in the manner in which he functions in the play. What I find interesting then, is his death- what is that saying about the audience itself? Is there a death of the common belief in a royal superiority through his death? We don’t see him die- we are only informed that he has. Does that make his lack of presence haunt the scene?

  2. I think most of the relatability of Falstaff is like you said, he is similar to the common man that would be Shakespeare’s audience. Falstaff is a Knight, though. I don’t believe we know if he is risen from the lower class.

    So while Falstaff definitely embodies the practices of the lower class (Drinking and partying and living off other’s dime), he is certainly among at least the middle class. Its kind of interesting that Falstaff is so beloved considering he does whatever he can to get out of his duties and he makes quite a few questionable decisions throughout the Henriad.

    For me, Falstaff’s moral ambiguity is the most interesting aspect of his character. He is great because of his total selfishness and banter. I think serves as a nice way for Hal to look away from himself and his own recreational enjoyments to the concerns of the realm and to the good of others.

    I don’t really know what statement Shakespeare was making by having Falstaff die “off-screen.” Perhaps it was Shakespeare’s own personal vendetta that led him to kill Falstaff off so quietly. I think it is a funny idea to consider that Shakespeare may not have loved Falstaff as much as his audience did. Or maybe it was simply a literary decision further separating Henry from Falstaff both on stage and mortally.

  3. I feel that the reasoning for Shakespeare making the bold decision of having Falstaff’s death insinuated and not shown on stage is to show the lack of connection between Henry and Falstaff. Falstaff was indeed an ionic character, even so that the audience wanted more of just Falstaff. I also believe that not showing Falstaff’s death makes more of an impact us and the audience, making his legacy that more important.

  4. I think this was an interesting question to discuss, one that I never really considered until reading your post. Evaluationg who the likeable characters were at the time the play was first performed often leads to a new interpretation of the play and, even a shift in opinion of the characters, as you pointed out.

  5. There is a certain lack of surprise I feel when discussing Falstaff’s popularity with contemporary audiences, for he was likely the most relatable character for most audience members. Although he did have some prestige and nobility, he was far from being considered a respected man of the court. Being such a lovable character, even when Falstaff is given credit for killing Hotspur, a reader cannot help but hope this falsehood will help Falstaff to get his life back on track. Likewise, Shakespeare’s audiences had a bit of economic comfort (enough to splurge on a night of entertainment), but most were not of the extreme upper class. Falstaff is, indeed, a tragic character in these works, for although an arguably redeemable character, he suffers a sad fate, all at the hands of a man who was once his good friend. By seeing ourselves in Falstaff, this element of the play becomes more personal, for a friend cast another friend aside with abandon, all for the sake of power. If this was Shakespeare’s intention, once again, he is imploring audiences to really contemplate the righteousness of the crown.

  6. I think this is a really interesting point that you chose to focus on. At first read, I strongly disliked Falstaff for his lack of seriousness and I thought his version of being the comic relief was quite annoying. Him not taking the war seriously in Henry IV, the pick pocketing incident where he was just too drunk to remember what happened to all of his money, and the taking full credit for the death of Hotspur really grinded my gears because I saw Falstaff as a simple low life not worthy of a real position in the court. But then as I realized that the court is somewhat of a sham in itself, Falstaff’s identity changed a bit. Maybe the people of Shakespeare’s time made Falstaff the most popular character because they figured if all of those who rule us are just as silly and dumbwitted as Falstaff is, then who’s to say they couldn’t have a bit of rowdy times themselves.

  7. I identify with this post because I also had a change of heart towards Falstaff. His character annoyed me in the beginning of the Henriad plays, especially in Henry IV when he took the war as a joke. I kept in mind that I could have had this perspective because I was reading the play, rather than watching it. So in Shakespeare’s time, his character most likely provided a comic relief to the people in the audience. However, when Falstaff died, I realized how much I appreciated his character. It was heartbreaking that King Henry did not even pay homage to his death because I believed that they once had a very true and real friendship. The fact that they did not even bring his body out on stage on last time further pulled on my heartstrings. I like your theory that the reason a lot of the Shakespearean people identified with Falstaff was because of his class status and the way that it did not prevent him from being friends with someone of royalty. I think this happens a lot in the sense that audiences like a character when they can identify with them based on demographic, gender, etc.

  8. I think you propose a valid argument and I initially felt the same as you did in regard to Falstaff. He does possess an air of empathy to much of the audience, but this is interesting when we look at his ending. Sure people may have felt they could connect with him more, but the acknowledgement of his death is done in such a manner that it forgets Falstaff. Does this speak to the lower class citizens of Shakespeare’s time? Were they seen as disposable and were confronted with this recognition during the play? Falstaff was loyal, drunk, of the lower class, Hal’s “friend”, but his death did not have an effect on anyone.

  9. I agree that the Shakespearean audiences love of Falstaff has to do with his relatability. However, this could also be due in part to the portrayal of Falstaff. I wrote my blog post on the actor Kempe who played Falstaff at the time. Falstaff was one of his claims to fame and some scholars theorize that part of the reason Shakespeare killed off Falstaff is because Kempe left the lord chamberlain’s men. If this theory were accurate, it would imply that Kempe’s Falstaff was so loved that Shakespeare thought it futile to have another actor attempt the character. Through consistency, Falstaff became not just a character, but a real man, whos idiosyncrasies were known by the average audience member. the bond surely demonstrates how easy it could have been for an audience member of the time to relate to the character.

  10. I think this is a pretty interesting question I never thought about before reading your blog post! I definitely agree with your thoughts on Falstaff, he certainly must have been the most relatable character to the everyday commoner of Shakespeare’s theatre, but also one who exhibited some valuable characteristics, such as humor, honesty(at least in terms of opinions on things such as honor), and friendship–to Hal at first. I really feel like Hal and Falstaff also had a very genuine friendship, or as genuine as it could have been before Hal ‘banished’ him. You also brought up an interesting point on that this friendship with Hal relates the common people themselves more to the monarchy, almost propagandic in a way!

  11. Mulready, you’ve hit the nail on the head! Falstaff is one of the few lowly characters in the Henriad that is given enough text to be likable and relate-able to the audience. It also definitely does help that he is close with a prince, so the common folk were probably delighted to see him play “king” in his reenactment with Hal of how a confrontation with Henry IV would go, as well as seeing a member of the royalty give his friends rewards (Falstaff being given command of a troupe). However, it should be noted that while Falstaff did appear lowly based on his actions and his words, he is still a knight and isn’t as lowly as he may appear. I’m sure the audience forgets this little detail however, and was still perceived as lowly as cohorts in the taverns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar