The Rejection and Regeneration of Falstaff in 1 Henry IV

THE REJECTION AND REGENERATION OF FALSTAFF IN 1 HENRY IV by Warren M. Howe I The most frequently debated critical issue in Shakespeare's Henry IV plays centers on the rejection of Falstaff by Hal as the newly crowned Henry V at the end of 2 Henry IV. How, ask the critics, can an ideal monarch publicly and seemingly abruptly banish the humorous and life-loving companion of his youth? The responses to this question are varied, but few critics are comfortable with the king's rejection of the fat knight, one of Hal's first official acts. Some readers go so far as to see Hal as cold and ruthless, a Machiavellian ruler; many of his otherwise most ardent supporters lament that in his rejection of "sweet Jack" Falstaff rejects something spontaneous, pleasing, and good. The critical literature makes clear that many readers see something lacking in this supposedly ideal king. Yet it would seem that Shakespeare is in the Henry IV plays dramatizing the education of a young prince into a truly ideal ruler, the savior—albeit temporarily—of an England racked by weakness, corruption, and rebellion. In order to reconcile the character of the ideal monarch with his rejection of his former companion, we must first focus on the first of the two Henry IV plays, considering it as a complete and independent dramatic entity.1 Doing so, we may come to recognize that this play has an allegorical dimension, the function of which is essentially to enhance and strengthen the dramatic qualities. Most importantly, this allegorical dimension, it will become clear, mandates and explains Hal's rejection of Falstaff in 1 Henry IV. Failure to recognize this dimension of the play has clouded critical perceptions, and in particular has helped to bring about the controversies concerning the characters of Hal and Falstaff. Many readers have also argued that the conflict between the Prince and *Warren M. Howe is an Assistant Professor of English at Idaho State University in Pocatello. I wish to acknowledge valuable criticism and suggestions from my colleagues Glen O. Allen, Dante K. Cantrill, and Denzell S. Smith. 1. Among the many cogent arguments for the independence of each of the two plays, one of the most forceful is Harold Jenkins, The Structural Problem in Shakespeare 's Henry the Fourth (1956); rpt. London: Methuen, 1973), which notes many inconsistencies between the two plays and concludes, p. 26, that they are in part complementary but also "independent and even incompatible." ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW217 Warren M. Howe the fat knight lacks clear dramatic resolution at play's end, thereby necessitating Shakespeare to write the second play. The allegorical dimension, however, indicates that the first play does not lack dramatic resolution—the conflict between Falstaff and Prince Hal is indeed resolved. Shakespeare may have had several other reasons for writing a second play, among them, I suggest, the subtlety of his allegorical dimension: because this dimension was not understood by his audience, the playwright has Hal reject the fat knight all over again in the second play, this time in a clear and unmistakable manner.2 Why Shakespeare chose to incorporate an allegorical dimension into a history play is explained when we examine the historical Henry V as he was understood in Shakespeare's day. What Shakespeare was confronted with was a ruler widely viewed in Elizabethan England as the ideal king of the Middle Ages, a truly faultless monarch. One of the playwright's tasks, then, was to portray this embodiment of goodness and perfection as a dramatically effective character, a character in which dramatic conflictcould develop and be resolved convincingly. In addition, the Elizabethan view of Henry V included the legend of the profligate Prince Hal, the rowdy roisterer, brawler and sinner who suddenly and inexplicably became transformed into the mature, all-virtuous Henry V. Such a transformation, of course, lacks dramatic conviction. A second task for the playwright, therefore, was to portray his central character as convincingly and dramatically putting aside his youthful legend and putting on the mature one. II Most of Shakespeare's sources for this play have been well documented. Holinshed's Chronicles, of course, provided most of the historical material...