The Immorality of I Henry IV’s Falstaff

The character of Falstaff holds warped ideas about the nature of virtue. In William Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV, he epitomizes cowardice and self-indulgence. From his lack of courage on the battlefield to his addiction to sack, the way Falstaff conducts himself is hardly to be emulated. Though Falstaff lacks morals, he does not, however, lack intelligence. Furthermore, he uses his intelligence to attempt to justify his moral shortcomings.

Falstaff’s opinions about the value of honor are highly contested. He expresses the uselessness of honor in a monologue in Act 5 scene i. He controversially states that

“Well, ’tis no matter; honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honour set-to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? No. What is honour? A word. What is in that word “honour”? What is that “honour”? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. ‘Tis insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I’ll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.”

In other words, Falstaff values only that which is material and tangible. He desires only what can be physically and pragmatically beneficial – that which will cure or alleviate the pain of an injury. Furthermore, he finds little purpose in the imponderable. The immaterial is of no use to Falstaff. In the opening lines of this monologue, Falstaff is declaring the futility of honor. He is elaborating on the idea that, since honor will not aid in his survival on the battlefield, it is not something for which he will strive. Then, he goes on to say that those who do achieve honor are not alive to experience it. Since the dead have it, and the living do not, it can hold no purpose. He dismisses all that is noble and virtuous (i.e. honorable) as inconsequential, even a shield of sort.

As previously stated, his moral weakness does not imply diminished intellect. He uses his wit to survive, as evidenced by his antics in act scene where he pretends to be dead to avoid fighting an enemy combatant. He has enough sense to know that he cannot contribute much on the battlefield, so he comes up with clever, albeit deceitful ways to derail death. His views about honor rival those of more valiant characters like Prince Harry and Hotspur. Unlike them, Falstaff cares nothing of what legacy he may leave behind. He is too preoccupied with reaping the rewards of materialism. His selfishness and his lust for money, food, riches, and alcohol inhibit his vision of how he will be perceived in the future.

Falstaff fails to realize the moral importance of honor. Honor validates a life well spent on Earth. Our time here is, relatively, but a fleeting moment. Death – no matter where, how or at which point in our lives it occurs – is a certainty. Thus, it should be embraced. It is difficult to imagine a better or more virtuous way to die than having others praise one’s final act. Dying in battle is the ultimate sacrifice for one’s country. Had Falstaff come to realize the worth of honor, his legacy would have been that of a hero – an altruistic braveheart. Instead, he is perceived as a coward.

Shakespeare’s Falstaff is a character of comic relief. His opinions/actions are likely to be deemed both laughable and misguided by the audience. He is anything but a model for one’s moral code. There is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that morality correlates to happiness. To ensure happiness, then, one should steer clear of the immorality – the lack of virtue – of Falstaff.

Source: Shakespeare, William. I Henry IV.