Many of Shakespeare’s works are susceptible to multiple readings and interpretations, including the interpretation of characters. William Shakespeare’s play 1 Henry IV is no exception. The character of John Falstaff has been the subject of many debates regarding his character and whether he is a purely comedic character or if he, in fact, is a character of tragic origins. Falstaff is a character who appears mostly in scenes at The Boar’s Head, which is a pub in the play. There are very moments in which readers can analyze Falstaff for more than a town drunk. Although many believe Sir John Falstaff is a comedic character, the interactions he has with Prince Hal, his alcoholism, his wise soliloquy and his quick thinking on the battlefield portray…show more content… Poins and Hal do not help in the initial robbery, leaving Falstaff to rob the travellers with less experienced robbers and then, as Falstaff is sharing the loot Poins and Hal set upon the thieves to steal their loot. In the Norton Critical Edition, it is suggested that Falstaff receives two blows and leaves the loot behind (2.3.90-91). This suggests that Falstaff was physically harmed by Hal and Poins suggesting that Hal does not only abuse Falstaff verbally, but also physically, further illustrating the fact that their relationship is not one of equality and is instead, a friendship of advantage and exploitation. Hal, a character who is in no need for the money has conspired a plan to rob one of his so-called “best friends” who is in need of the money more than one who is royalty. After the robbery, Hal says to Poins that “Falstaff sweats to death and lards the lean earth as he walks along. Were’t not for laughing, I should pity him” (2.2.95-97). Although what Falstaff has done is not admirable in any sense of the word, what Hal has done is exponentially worse than what Falstaff has done. First off, Hal has broken a promise that he has had with Falstaff in the robbery of the travellers and secondly, he does not care about the physically well-being of Falstaff. He is laughing at the fact that he may be dying instead of being…show more content… This claim suggests that there is an uncertainty regarding the portrayal of Falstaff and we perceive him as a character. That being said, this suggests that he is clearly not a one dimensional character. If Falstaff, was in fact, a truly comedic character, there would be no need for this uncertainty that surrounds him. Morgann then states that “we all like Old Jack; yet, by some perverse fate, we all abuse him, and deny him the possession of any one single good or respectable quality” (223-224). If we as readers abuse Falstaff, and are unable to associate any one good quality to him, it is clear that Shakespeare’s intentions were not then, to portray him as a comedic character since most comedic characters in plays are the most liked characters. These actions that Morgann ascribes to readers of the play can also be ascribed to the other characters in the play and how they relate to Falstaff. There are no instances in which others speak of Falstaff in a positive light implying that those who laugh while Falstaff is speaking, are laughing at him, not with him. Morgann’s analysis of the reader’s perception of Falstaff make it impossible to see him as a comedic character and instead, readers are forced to perceive Falstaff in a very tragic
