Tag: Falstaff

Post 7: Linking Falstaff and Hotspur: Doll and Kate

In this text, I wish to reinforce the idea that there is an intended association of Hotspur and Falstaff [1] by pointing out a parallel between two scenes in 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV, the first play culminating in Hotspur’s death, and the second in Falstaff’s rejection (entailing his death as narrated in Henry V).

Before moving to the actual comparison, consider that there is, by coincident or not, a funny echo of Hotspur’s fight with Prince Hal, ensuing which Hotspur ends up dead, having obtained a thigh wound by Falstaff who claims the dead on him. (See my earlier post).

After Falstaff has thrown out Pistol, with Bardolph’s help, Doll asks him: “Are you not hurt i’th’Groyne? me thought hee/ made a shrewd Thrust at your Belly.” (1231-1232) This is interesting, given my earlier arguement concerning Hotspur’s post-mortem thigh wound as applied by Falstaff (See my earlier post).

The main argument of this text is concerned with paralleling Hotspur’s farewell scene from 1 Henry IV with Falstaff’s farewell scene from 2 Henry IV as both must take leave of their respective lovers Kate and Doll to go to the wars. Let us first at the episode featuring Hotspur and Kate and then compare it with the one featuring Falstaff and Doll.

To begin with, the context is that Hotspur must leave Kate to go off to the wars, that he “must leaue you within these two hours” (884) as he says to Kate, who rightly supposes that “Mortimer doth stirre about his Title, and hath sent/ for you to line his enterprize” (929-930).

Much later, Hotspur and Kate appear again, this time effectually in company with Mortimer and his Welsh wife, and Mortimer assures her that “she and my Aunt Percy/ Shall follow in your Conduct speedily.” (1730-1731) Then follows a song sung by Mortimer’s wife after which Hotspur and Mortimer finally leave (1805 ff.).

Granted, its Mortimer and his wife, who are desperate about being separated; we are told about the latter that “shee’le not part with you” (1728), and after the song we are told that Mortimer is “as slow,/ As hot Lord Percy is on fire to goe” (1809-1810). Accordingly, Hotspur had assured Kate earlier that “when I am a horsebacke, I will sweare/ I loue thee infinitely” (946-947).

Let us move on to Falstaff and Doll in 2 Henry IV. Falstaff must off to the wars, [2] and at the Hostess’ place, Doll says to him:

Thou art going to the Warres, and whether I/ shall euer see thee againe, or no, there is no body/ cares. (1091-1094)

Then follows the interlude with Pistol and after Falstaff got rid off him with Bardolph’s help, he thinks that he spends romantic time alone with Doll (1229-1306)—he is unaware that Hal and Poins in drawers’ disguise are eavesdropping from 1256 on; notably, musicians have entered to play for Falstaff and Doll (1247 ff.). After Hal and Poins have revealed themselves, Peto enters with the message that Falstaff must off to the wars, saying that

a dozen Captaines,/ Bare-headed, sweating, knocking at the Tauernes,/ And asking euery one for Sir Iohn Falstaffe. (1385-1387)

Falstaff then takes leave of the Hostess and Doll with heavy heart (1401 ff.), though it is implied that Doll is being sent after him once more as Bardolph bis her again to “come to my Master” (1417).

Concluding, in both 1 and 2 Henry IV there are similar scenes of farewell involving Hotspur (and Mortimer) and Falstaff. Both must off to the wars and take leave of their lovers, that is, Lady Percy (and Mortimer’s Welsh wife) and Doll. In both cases, romantic music is involved, and both farewells are emotionally charged.

Granted, there is no exact structural parallelism in terms of episode or scene; for example, Kate and Hotspur‘s intimate exchange comes early in 1 Henry VI, while the music session and actual farewell come only later. Similarly, in 2 Henry IV, Doll and Falstaff‘s time together is not only interrupted by Pistol but also by Poins and Hal.

There is no proof then that the parallelism is meaningful, but I suggest that the relation between Falstaff and Hotspur is thereby reinforced and that it may well have been intended thus.

————————————–

[1] Such an intended relation coheres with similarities between those figures observed independently, see S. A. Small, “Hotspur and Falstaff,” The Shakespeare Association Bulletin 16, no. 4 (1941): 243-248. A parallel seems also implied in the following text, though it was not available to me. L. L. Levin, “Hotspur, Falstaff, and the Emblem of Wrath in ‘1 Henry IV,’“ Shakespeare Studies 10 (1977), 43-65.

[2] To be sure, that Falstaff must off to the wars we know from early on as  the Lord Chief Justice declares that he must against the enemy “with Lord Iohn of Lancaster” (460), and who complains again that “you loyter heere too long being you/ are to take Souldiers vp, in Countries as you go” (789-790).

First published on May 18 2025 on Ko-fi

08/31/2025

Post 6: Hotspur’s “double death” in 1 Henry IV [updated 31.08.2025]

This text is a comment on Hotspur’s death in 1 Henry IV and its significance for the entire Lancasterian tetralogy. It peculiar because, having been killed by Prince Hal, he is once again killed (as it were) by Falstaff, and his death is thus linked with both figures in the play.

To begin with, let me note what on my interpretation all three figures (Prince Hal, Falstaff, and Hotspur) at least partly represent.

Firstly, Hotspur very much denotes chivalric virtues. Firstly, King Henry wishes that his loose son Hal should be like Hotspur (81 ff.), whom he calls “the Theame of Honors tongue” (84), and “sweet Fortunes Minion, and her Pride” (86). (See also 1914 ff.) Secondly, Prince Hal himself gives testimony of his reputation calling him “This gallant Hotspur, this all-praysed Knight,” (1960) notes that “euery Honor sitting on his Helme,” (1962) and speaks of his “glorious Deedes” (1966 and 1968).

Secondly, Falstaff, of course, together with his companions, is linked with loose behaviour of every kind including thievery, whoring, drinking, and gluttony, and this coheres well with the fact that scholars have observed that he owes something to the Vice from the Morality Plays. [1]

Thirdly, given his soliloquy toward the beginning of the play with the incipit “I know you all …” (296 ff.), it must be assumed that Prince Hal has all along been standing for the contrary of what Falstaff represents; in other words, his denunciations of Falstaff, while having been inseparable from jest and merry-making in the beginning, have always incorporated a serious core, which eventually comes to the fore at the end of 2 Henry IV when Hal, now crowned King Henry V, banishes Falstaff and his fellows.

Moving on to Hotspur’s death, it is clear that Prince Hal kills Hotspur in a battle one against the other, right after he has saved the King his father from being killed by Douglas (2984 ff.). Moreover, Hotspur is killed by Hal, right after Falstaff himself has been “killed” by Douglas, though Falstaff, of course, is “resurrected” in a moment’s time, as he was only counterfeiting. In fact, Hal’s farewell to Falstaff ensues directly after his final words to Hotspur, and we learn that Falstaff and Hotspur must be laying close by, as, promising to return, Hal says to Falstaff “Till then, in blood, by Noble Percie lye” (3075).

In other words, I suggest that Shakespeare’s setting these “deaths” (one real, the other apparent) one next to the other may be reinforcing a presumed association of Hotspur and Falstaff, who have been argued to be linked also in terms of their speech behaviour. [2]

Now, conspicously, having just risen from the dead (as it were) after Hal left, Falstaff, being afraid that Hotspur “should counterfeit too, and rise” (3088) says:

therefore Ile make him sure:/ yea, and Ile sweare I kill’d him. Why may not hee rise as/ well as I: Nothing confutes me but eyes, and no-bodie/ sees me. Therefore sirra, with a new wound in your thigh/ come you along me. (3089-3093)

Having wounded Hotspur’s dead body, Falstaff even claims to have killed Hotspur himself (3104 ff.), and Prince Hal does him the favour to cover up his lie, saying:

“For my part, if a lye may do thee grace,/ Ile gil’d it with the happiest tearmes I haue.” (1 H IV, 3122-3123)

Thus, notwithstanding that things are reported correctly by Morton, messenger to Northumberland, in 2 Henry IV (see 167-171), the idea that Falstaff killed Hotspur has been put out there.

In this context, note also that “thigh wounds” do have a special literary significance in epic poetry, and given that Shakespeare’s “Henriad” has been argued to be written at least partially with the Aeneid in mind, it may be not too far fetched to take a glance to Virgil’s epos. [3] There, the death of at least two figures unambiguously involves thigh wounds [4], and one of them is Turnus who has already been likened to Hotspur by M. Mueller in other respects. [5]

Thus, as D. Felton argues that the thigh wound symbolises loss of fertility or even impotence in Classical epic poetry, I suggest that, given Hotspur’s fiery character, Shakespeare links dead, thigh wounded Hotspur with vigour extinguished. Recall as part of his last words the phrase, “Oh Harry, thou hast rob’d me of my youth” (3042). [6] Again, that with Hotspur is also the “fire” (2 H IV, 173) extinguished is said by Morton, the messenger to Northumberland, in 2 Henry IV.

Thus, on this interpretation, if Falstaff is linked with the death of Hotspur, then the pretention is that Hotspur-like vigour has been killed by Falstaffian merry-making, even though it has been really killed by Hal-like abstinent virtue.

Also, by the way in which the characters are supposedly linked it is implied that Hotspur’s vigour is linked with Falstaff’s merry-making. With Hotspur being dead, consider Falstaff’s deterioration in 2 Henry IV, where he is closely linked with malady, old age, and sinfulness.

More generally speaking, in contrast with the merry business in 1 Henry IV, this coheres with the more somber mood in 2 Henry IV, which is fraught with the theme of sickness, and loss of vigour aptly glosses much of its going ons. For example, notice Hal’s melancholy, including his desire after “small Beere” (2 H IV, 797), which contends with his grief for his suffering father. Also consider how Falstaff indulges in nostalgia together with Shallow.

In conclusion, I suggest that Falstaff and Hotspur are linked, and that, for better or worse, Prince Hal’s killing of Hotspur in 1 Henry IV is the first step of Hal’s reformation, which is complete only in Henry V, and that the second is his rejection of Falstaff. Finally, as both characters are symbolically linked, I think that Hotspur’s death in 1 Henry IV at least partly accounts for Falstaff’s adapted characterisation in 2 Henry IV.

As an afterthought [added 31/08/2025], recall that in Taming of the Shrew Shakespeare parodies chivalry when he has Sly, the drunkard, declare to the Hostess, when he is thrown out of the tavern:

Y’are a baggage, the Slies are no/ Rogues. Looke in the Chronicles, we came/ in with Richard Conqueror: therefore Pau-/cas pallabris, let the world slide: Sessa. (6-9)

Against this background, and not to mention Sir Toby Belch from Twelth Night, it comes as less as a surprise that Shakespeare should have also somehow linked Falstaff, the debaucher, with the heroic Hotspur in his Henriad.

_______________________________

[1] See B. Spivack, “Falstaff and the Psychomachia,” Shakespeare Quarterly 8, no. 4 (1957): 449-459.

[2] See S. A. Small, “Hotspur and Falstaff,” The Shakespeare Association Bulletin 16, no. 4 (1941): 243-248.

[3] A. Woodmansee, The influence of Vergil’s Aeneid on Shakespeare’s Henriad, Diss. (Stanislaus: California State University, 2014).

[4] D. Felton, “Thigh wounds in Homer and Vergil: Cultural reality and literary metaphor,” Resemblance and Reality in Greek Thought, edited by A. Park (London: Routledge, 2016), 255-274.

[5] M. Mueller, “Turnus and Hotspur: The Political Adversary in the ‘Aeneid’ and ‘Henry IV,’” Phoenix 23, no. 3 (1969): 278–90.

[6] Curiously, Hotspur is even linked with childishness proper, as he is called “Mars, in swathing Clothes, This Infant Warrior” (1932-1933), and, though more ambiguously, he is also called “Child of Honor and Renowne” (1959), and “Northerne Youth” (1965).

First published on May 18 2025 on Ko-fi

05/18/2025

Post 2: The “Knight’s Tale” as a Source of Falstaff’s Death from “Henry V”?

The description of Falstaff’s death in Henry V is very famous. We read:

Bard. Would I were with him, wheresomere hee is,/ eyther in Heauen, or in Hell./ Hostesse. Nay sure, hee’s not in Hell: hee’s in Arthurs Bosome, if euer man went to Arthurs Bosome: a made a/ finer end, and went away and it had beene any Christome/ Child: a parted eu’n iust between Twelue and One, eu’n/ at the turning o’th’Tyde: for after I saw him fumble with/ the Sheets, and play with Flowers, and smile vpon his fin-/ gers end, I knew there was but one way: for his Nose was/ as sharpe as a Pen, and a Table of greene fields. Ho now/ Sir Iohn (quot I?) what man? be a good cheare: so a/ cryed out, God, God, God, three or foure times: now I,/ to comfort him, bid him a should not hinke of God; I/ hop’d there was no neede to trouble himselfe with any/ such thoughts yet: so a bad me lay more Clothes on his/ feet: I put my hand into the Bed, and felt them, and they/ were as cold as any stone:/ then I felt to his knees, and so/ vp-peer’d, and vpward, and all was as cold as any stone. (830 – 847) [1]

The passage is dense, and not editorally obvious due to textual issues, but I wish to make a point on the motif of Falstaff’s cold feet only.

As an influence editors usually cited Plato’s description of Socrates’ death from the dialogue Phaedo where we read that

this man who had administered the poison began examining him, and when some time had passed he probed his feet and legs and then he pinched his foot hard and asked if he could feel it. 118A He said, “No.” And after this the man felt his shin once more, and working upwards in this way he showed us that he was going cold and stiff. And again, he touched him and said that when it reached the heart, he would then be gone. [2]

However, it may perhaps also be true that Shakespeare was inspired by Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale where mortally wounded Arcite is dying in a similar fashion (just like his direct model Arcita from Boccaccio’s Teseida). We read:

And with that word his speche faille gan,/ For from his feet up to his brest was come/ The coold of deeth, that hadde hym overcome,/ And yet moreover, for in his armes two/ The vital strengthe is lost and al ago./ Oonly the intellect, withouten moore,/ That dwelled in his herte syk and soore,/ Gan faillen whan the herte felte deeth./ Dusked his eyen two, and failed breeth,/ But on his lady yet case he his ye;/ His laste word was, mercy, emelye! His spirit chaunged hous and wente ther,/ As I cam nevere, I kan nat tellen wher./ Therfore I stynte; I nam no divinistre;/ Of soules fynde I nat in this registre,/ Ne me ne list thilke opinions to telle/ Of hem, though that they writen wher they dwelle./ Arcite is coold, ther Mars his soule gye! (2799-2815) [3]

I wish to emphasise the phrase according to which “from his feet up to his brest was come/ The coold of deeth” (2800-2801), and that Arcite’s fading is associated with the moment “whan the herte felte deeth” (2805). Perhaps similarly, the hostess puts “Clothes on his/ feet” (844-845), and puts her hand into the bed to feel them, moving then upwards, and upwards. Again, as R. S. Fraser has argued also [4], Falstaff can be read as associated symbolically with the heart, and the Hostess even seems to call him as “poore hearte” (616).

Moreover, in terms of topic, as with Arcite’s death his soul is at stake (“ther Mars his soule gye” [5]), so in Henry V the question is explicitly posed where Falstaff will reside after he passed away (in “Arthur’s bosom”).

Again, one may argue that his crying out “of Women” (850) on his deathbed echoes Arcite’s final words “mercy, Emelye” (2808).

Generally speaking, Falstaff can certainly be called, like Socrates, a misleader of youth, but one may point instead to his mock-chivalric presentation as Falstaff, the knight. And Shakespeare certainly knew and estimated the Knight’s Tale, already if we consider merely the fact that he drew on it on the very least for constructing his plot of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and for co-writing the late play Two Noble Kinsmen. It may be more probable a source than Plato whose writings were certainly less well-known and far spread at the time.

This argument will be spelled out in a forthcoming text (unpublished).

_______________________________

For other opinions on Falstaff’s death, including the connection with Socrates, see, for example, P. M . Cubeta, “Falstaff and the Art of Dying,” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 27, no. 2 (1987): 197–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/450462.

[1] “Henry V (Folio 1, 1623),” Internet Shakespeare Editions, University of Victoria, NaN undefined NaN. Web. 2 Nov. 2024. https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/H5_F1/complete/index.html.

[2] The Dialogues of Plato, translated by D. Horan, https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/phaedo/ (accessed on 02.111.2024).

[3] See G. Chaucer, “The Knight’s Tale,” The Riverside Chaucer (Houghton-Mifflin company) as cited on https://chaucer.fas.harvard.edu/pages/knights-tale-0.

[4] R. S. Fraser, “‘The king hs killed his heart’: The Death of Falstaff in Henry V, Sederi 20 (2010): 145-157. Available on jstor.

[5] In contrast with Chaucer’s description of Troilus death in Troilus and Cryseide, where Chaucer is almost as elaborate on the fate of Troilus’ soul as Boccaccio is on the fate of Arcita’s soul, his refusal to say anything about the fate of Arcite’s soul is conspicuous.

 

First published 2th November 2024 on ko-fi

11/06/2024