1) Sir John Falstaff is a complex character who represents English society coping with catastrophe while indulging in its benefits. 2) After the Black Death and famine devastated England, society experienced conflicting feelings of grief and prosperity. 3) Falstaff fully embraces hedonism and cynicism, rejecting religion, law, and order. He prioritizes self-preservation over honor.

1. Borgia 1
Samantha Borgia
Dr. Curtis
ENGL 322-001
19 November 2014
The Complex Character of Sir John Falstaff
Sir John Falstaff is a character that shows up in three of the four plays of Shakespeare’s
Henriad, but he only plays a major role in two of them (namely, I Henry IV and II Henry IV).
Falstaff is popularly known for his clownish antics; however, there is a lot more to the old knight
than his banter and mischief. In many ways Falstaff is the personification of the thoughts and
feelings in English society at the time in which the plays are set as he represents a people coping
with catastrophe while at the same time indulging in the benefits of that catastrophe.
Shakespeare’s Henriad follows the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V. The
historical context is that of an England in the early 1400s recovering from recently being ravaged
by the Black Death and dramatic climate change that made the cultivation of crops and
production of food extremely difficult (Saul). These two catastrophes led to an almost surreal
decrease in population due to an incredible amount of death at the hands of sickness and
starvation, which consequently resulted in what may be described as a spiritually dead England.
The survivors became very much aware of the reality of their mortality, which resulted in a
looming sense of fear and uncertainty—“their day, it was implied, would come” (Saul). Perhaps
a bit disconcertingly, however, the exorbitant rates of death in England meant that, “For those
who survived the catastrophes, life was good – far better than before” (Saul). More land was
available at lower prices; the price of food and other necessities had dropped significantly; wages
increased since there were fewer laborers; those who were once members of the lower classes

2. Borgia 2
now had the opportunity increase their social standings by filling in the higher-end career
positions that had been left vacant (Saul). These and other effects led to rise of the middle class
and commercialism. The high price at which these high times and prosperity came resulted in the
conflicted psyche of society as a whole as it dealt with the shock of its crippling loss while at the
same time celebrating the abundance that came as a result of such loss. Shakespeare’s Sir John
Falstaff is the perfect embodiment of how a considerable portion of the population undoubtedly
coped with the conflict between spiritual grief and corporeal merriment. Falstaff’s gaiety is
caused by pleasures he enjoys in life as a direct result of his hedonism, whereas his underlying
cynicism is rooted in his skepticism as to the usefulness of piety in the face of the harsh reality of
the world. John Falstaff’s adherence to both hedonism and cynicism results in his fully
embracing a chaotic worldview revolving around self-preservation.
Based on his actions in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, Falstaff has a blatant disregard for the
law. Among other things, he is willing to risk his life for a robbery (a capital offense) with his
thieving friends at Gad’s Hill (I Henry IV, II.ii); he simply ignores his summons from the Chief
Justice (II Henry IV, I.ii); he intentionally builds a weak army because he cares more about
profiting from the bribes he receives from the men wishing to escape the draft than gathering a
formidable army (II Henry IV, III.ii); and he repeatedly exploits the dimwitted Hostess Quickly
despite the intervention of law enforcement officers (II Henry IV, II.i). These examples of
heedless law-breaking prove that Falstaff has no working fear of God or the law and refuses to
abide by any set standards in the law, morality, or otherwise.
Because of his recklessness, Falstaff is the antithesis of medieval thoughts on God and
the organization of the world. Prior to the jarring shock of the incredible amount of death and
disease brought on by the Black Plague and crop failure in England, the medieval worldview was

3. Borgia 3
dependent on the idea of the world being subdivided into clear-cut categories and comprised of
meticulously organized elements. For instance, the world was thought to have been made up of
four elements (earth, wind, air, and fire) and it was thought that there were four humors in the
body that were responsible for a person’s temperament (sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic, and
choleric) (Hankins). According to Hankins in The Backgrounds of Shakespeare’s Thought,
“God’s act of creation was to separate the elements and to recombine them in an orderly manner”
(Hankins 40) but “somewhere in or outside the world, chaos still exists, waiting to overwhelm
the orderly cosmos” (Hankins, 38). Needless to say, after the loss of about half the population of
people, chaos and confusion overwhelmed every aspect of life in England as the very foundation
of the medieval worldview was shaken.
Falstaff is not only a good representation of an English citizen coping with this new
disorganized and chaotic worldview, but he may be a personification of the chaos itself.
Although Falstaff himself fits perfectly into one of the precise medieval categories mentioned
earlier since he has a totally sanguine personality as defined as someone “given over to pleasures
of the flesh, continual haunting of companie, and all kind of merrines, both lawfull and
unlawfull” (Hankins, 122), this sanguine personality is only charming at first. As Falstaff’s
appearances persist throughout the plays, his personality is no longer so humorous. In fact,
Falstaff seems to gradually give up his sanguinity in favor of a much darker personality. Or,
perhaps more accurately, one begins to realize just how dark Falstaff has always been after
gaining insight from Falstaff’s actions and asides to the audience over time.
Coursen in The Leasing Out of England claims that, “[Falstaff’s increasingly unpleasant
and disturbing characteristic] are best defined through Falstaff’s gradual immersion in the
‘commercial ethic’” (Coursen, 124). Sir John’s full embrace of commercialism can be seen in his

4. Borgia 4
opportunistic behavior as evidenced in incidences such as the end of I Henry IV when Falstaff
claims that it is he who killed Hotspur rather than Prince Hal who obviously knows better (I
Henry IV, V.iv.142-150) and in II Henry IV when Falstaff excuses himself from Lancaster’s
reprimand by claiming that he had, “in [his] pure and immaculate valor, taken Sir John Coleville
of the dale, a most furious knight and valorous enemy” (II Henry IV, IV.iii.36-38). These acts,
among others from Falstaff, plainly illustrate his opportunistic character as he ensures that he is
never actually in danger before claiming the benefits from his faux feats of courage. Falstaff
fully subscribes to the ethic of commercialism; “the ‘ethic’ is success, and success at the smallest
possible expense” (Coursen, 122). Clearly Falstaff is not motivated by the idea of honor; during
his speech about honor, Sir John concludes that, because honor is unable to meet physical needs,
such as the mending of wounded limbs, and because it is often only short-lived because the
living soon slander the dead, “Honor is a mere scutcheon” (I Henry IV, V.i.139). Whenever he
gets the chance, such as with the incidents with Coleville and Hotspur, Falstaff takes full
advantage of his opportunity and will have everyone believe that he is valiant and courageous
and worthy of honor. Richardson in Essays on Sir John Falstaff points out, “The distinction,
however, or esteem, to which [Falstaff] aspires, is not for the reality, but the appearance, of
merit: about the reality, provided he appear meritorious, he is quite unconcerned” (Richardson,
15-16). Falstaff is, in fact, very much a coward. Falstaff makes larger than life claims about
facing “A hundred [men] upon poor four of us” (I Henry II.iv.154-155) at the robbery at Gad’s
Hill, but as soon as Hal reveals to Falstaff that it was he and Poins who had robbed the company
of thieves, Falstaff quickly fabricates some sorry excuse for his cowardice of running away from
his opponents saying, “By the Lord, I knew ye as well as he that mad / ye… / The lion will not
touch the true prince” (I Henry IV, II.iv.256-260). Another instance of Falstaff spinelessly and

5. Borgia 5
quickly coming up with another feeble excuse for his actions is when Hal and Poins eavesdrop
on him talking unflatteringly about Hal behind his back to Hostess Quickly and Doll Tearsheet.
Again when Hal and Poins reveal themselves and confront him, Falstaff grovels for mercy and
excuses himself by saying, “I dispraised him before the wicked, that the wicked might not fall in
love with him” (II Henry IV, II.iv.313-314). Falstaff’s groveling and excuse-making is a pathetic
thing to observe, especially since his lies are so transparent that clearly everyone can see through
them and they are often the source of amusement for everyone else. Undoubtedly, Falstaff is
aware of the conspicuousness of his lies and that he is laughed at for them, but he realizes that as
long as the people are laughing, then he is safe. Falstaff does not care about maintaining a sense
of dignity because his desire for self-preservation far outweighs any desire he may have for
dignity and honor. In fact, “he does not wish to be valiant…Thus his cowardice seems to be the
result of deliberation, rather than the effect of constitution” (Richardson, 14). Falstaff is much
more clever than he lets on when one considers his goals and values and how calculating he is
when it comes to achieving them. He is a coward, but he is a coward by choice. He would much
rather be alive and a coward than dead and a hero.
An extremely important element to acknowledge in the character of Falstaff is
Shakespeare’s original intention to directly link him with the Lollard martyr Sir John Oldcastle
who was “‘hung in chains over a burning pyre’ for his anti-Catholic sentiments” (Buchwald,
402). Dramatists in Shakespeare’s time generally portrayed Oldcastle as “a roystering buffoon”
However, because of the support he received from other Lollards who defended his memory,
Shakespeare was forced to change the character’s name from Oldcastle to Falstaff (Waugh). In
fact, the real Oldcastle “came to be regarded as a national hero” for the part he took in the
English Reformation (Waugh). The real Oldcastle seemed to have been well loved by King

6. Borgia 6
Henry for his loyalty as the knight demonstrated “that even a Lollard might serve both his God
and his king” (Waugh); meanwhile, Shakespeare’s Falstaff chose to serve neither God nor the
king, but rather himself. While Falstaff proves himself to be a cowardly man not willing to stand
by any principles aside from saving his own skin, Oldcastle was evidently a man who held
staunchly to his convictions. Perhaps Oldcastle was targeted by the dramatists of his time for
having “drunk the gall of heresy” (Waugh). According to The English Historical Review, King
Henry offered to pull some strings for Oldcastle so that the loyal knight might be able to be
acquitted from the charges held against him for heresy, affiliating himself with unlicensed
preachers, and other crimes (Waugh). However, “Oldcastle, somewhat ungraciously, took no
notice of the offer, but at once announced that he was prepared to declare his faith” (Waugh),
thus proving his tenacity. Another noteworthy difference between the historical Oldcastle and his
onstage portrayal is that Shakespeare’s Sir John Falstaff is described as a “huge hill of flesh” by
Prince Hal (I Henry IV, II.iv.234), while “the authentic descriptions of the historic Oldcastle do
not depict him as obese” (Buchwald, 402). There must be a particular reason that the real
Oldcastle’s values contrast so drastically with what Shakespeare originally intended to be his
onstage counterpart. Shakespeare’s Falstaff is intentionally a gross caricature of the historical
figure of Oldcastle. Although Shakespeare’s portrayal of Falstaff as a rotund man aids in making
the man appear jolly, the old knight’s hugeness also evokes a subtle revulsion from the audience
as the stereotype of the slothful, boisterous, and greedy fat man is enforced by Falstaff’s actions
throughout the plays. Shakespeare seems to be making a mockery of Oldcastle as a person in
order to undermine his religious cause by portraying Falstaff as a buffoon; Falstaff’s obese
appearance, inaccurate as it may be, only adds to the image of buffoonery.

7. Borgia 7
The increase in hedonism and cynicism in society as discussed earlier culminates in the
distrust of organized religion as exemplified through the old knight; apparently “Falstaff
becomes a gross exaggeration…[of the] index of the ‘spiritual state’ of England” (Coursen, 124).
When Falstaff speaks directly about religion he reveals himself to be surprisingly clever and
perceptive as he shows his understanding of religion as he penetrates through Catholic and
Protestant rhetoric and satirizes it. In Falstaff’s very first appearance in I Henry IV, he and Hal
banter with each other on the subject of Falstaff’s frequent thievery. Falstaff somewhat jokingly
replies to Hal saying, “Why, Hal, ‘tis my vocation, Hal. ‘Tis no sin for a man to labor in his
vocation” (I Henry IV, I.ii.103-104). According to Avery, “the moral necessity of ‘laboring in
one’s vocation’ was a stock Protestant concept” (Avery). Certainly Falstaff is being facetious by
even implying that thievery could be a vocation in which a man can bring glory to God since he
would obviously be aware of God’s commandment against theft. Next Sir John goes on to say to
his mischievous partner Poins, “O, if men were to be saved by merit, what hole in hell were hot
enough for him?” (I Henry IV, I.ii.105-106). Like the historical John Oldcastle, John Falstaff is
clearly aware of “the Reformed doctrine of salvation by faith alone” (Avery); however, Falstaff’s
jesting manner in which he treats the subjects of salvation and hell showcase his overall
irreverence and total lack of fear of God. Perhaps Falstaff’s depiction of being an impious man is
due to Sir John Oldcastle’s provoking remarks about the Catholic church, such as when he
“openly declared that the pope was the head of antichrist, the archbishops and bishops were his
members, and the friars his tail” (Waugh, 454). Overall, Shakespeare’s paralleling the character
Sir John Falstaff with the historical figure and devout Lollard Sir John Oldcastle satirizes and
makes a mockery of the Protestant Reformation in England at the time.

8. Borgia 8
As alluded to earlier, even the relationship between Oldcastle/Falstaff and King Henry is
inaccurately portrayed, as well. While in reality Oldcastle and King Henry seemed to have a
mutual respect and sense of loyalty to one another, Shakespeare’s Falstaff “speaks
disrespectfully of Prince Henry, to whose friendship he is indebted, and values his friendship for
convenience rather than from regard” (Richardson, 18). Possibly the reason Shakespeare portrays
Falstaff so unfavorably in this regard and chooses to misrepresent Oldcastle and Henry’s real
relationship with one another is so that his audience can be prepared for the eventual banishment
and demise of Falstaff. Stewart claims that the Elizabethan audience “knew, from the beginning,
that the reign of this marvelous Lord of Misrule must have an end, that Falstaff must be rejected
by the Prodigal Prince, when the time for reformation came” (Stewart, 134). By the time of
Falstaff’s banishment, Hal (now King Henry V) represents the return of law and order after
having “turned away from [his] former self” (II Henry IV, V.v.58). Hal’s rejection of Falstaff is
the metaphorical rejection of chaos and anarchy in England. Falstaff quickly diminishes as he is
barely even mentioned in the next play, Henry V, before his death in the second act. Hostess
Quickly reports Falstaff’s final words shortly after she watches him die. It seems that even on his
deathbed Falstaff glorified his hedonism as he spoke of “handl[ing] women,” but within the same
breath Falstaff is taken over by fever and switches to discussing the more ominous subject of
“the Whore of Babylon” (Henry V, II.iii.35-37). Perhaps in his last moments Falstaff finally felt
the fear of God’s wrath written about in Revelation, where writings about the Whore of Babylon
can be found. The death of Falstaff means the end of the reign of chaos in England. It also means
the end of shameless irreverence before God and religion.
In the end, one can see that Sir John Falstaff very much so embodied the sentiments of
many of the people living in England during his time. After the dramatic decrease in population

9. Borgia 9
due to the Black Plague and crop failure there was an increased awareness of the mortality of
mankind as well as an ever-present and looming sense of fear that led to cynicism and the
mistrust of the foundation of medieval thought (chiefly the religious aspects). Meanwhile, the
rise of the middle class led to the rise of commercialism and thus the rise of hedonism. Both
effects resulted in a pervading sense of chaos and the need for self-preservation. Shakespeare’s
Falstaff fully illustrates how one would apply these concepts to everyday life in the 1400s in
England. His death puts disorder and total selfishness to an end as Prince Hal once again ushers
in law and order.

10. Borgia 10
Works Cited
Avery, Joshua. "Falstaff's conscience and protestant thought in Shakespeare's second Henriad."
Renascence: Essays on Values in Literature 65.2 (2013): 79+. Academic OneFile. Web.
17 Nov. 2014.
Buchwald, Henry, and Mary E Knatterud. "Morbid Obesity: Perceptions of Character and
Comorbidities in Falstaff." Obesity Surgery 10.5 (2000): 402-08. SpringerLink. Web.
Coursen, Herbert R. "Falstaff's England: II Henry IV." The Leasing out of England:
Shakespeare's Second Henriad. Washington, D.C.: U of America, 1982. Print.
Hankins, John Erskine. Backgrounds of Shakespeare's Thought. Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1978.
Print.
Richardson, William. Essays on Shakespeare's Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff and on
His Imitation of Female Characters. To Which Are Added, Some General Observations
on the Study of Shakespeare. By Mr. Richardson ... London: Printed for J. Murray, 1789.
Print.
Saul, Nigel. "Britain 1400." History Today 50.7 (2000): 38-43. ProQuest. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Orgel. "The First Part of King Henry the Fourth." The
Complete Works. New York: Penguin, 2002. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Orgel. "The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth." The
Complete Works. New York: Penguin, 2002. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Orgel. "The Life of King Henry the Fifth." The Complete
Works. New York: Penguin, 2002. Print.

11. Borgia 11
Stewart, J. I. M. "The Birth and Death of Falstaff." Character and Motive in Shakespeare; Some
Recent Appraisals Examined. London: Longmans, Green, 1949. Print.
Waugh, W. T. "Sir John Oldcastle." The English Historical Review. 79th ed. Vol. 20. Oxford UP,
1905. 434-456. Print.