The Inevitability of Falstaff’s Banishment文献综述

 2022-09-09 15:52:23

Literature Review

Of all the characters created by Shakespeare, Falstaff is by no means one of the most representative one. As Berry Ralph (25) put it, he is the “most perfect dramatic character”. He comes to the stage as a supporting actor, but enjoys the limelight over the leading characters in the play. Over the past four hundred years, studies on this fat, drunken rogue who has a talent for making everyone around him laugh never stop. Since he debuts in the theatre for the first time, Falstaff has been talked and cited more often than Shakespearersquo;s other figures. The attitude toward this fat old knight has always been controversial: some critics love him; others despise him; some others hold complex feelings on him.

Affected by humour, wit and vigour of Falstaff, many critics showed their affection to this old knight. Many of them believed that theses characteristics of Sir John make this character so acceptable to society that there is no necessity for him to acquire other virtue. As early as 1777, Maurice Morgann undertook a defence of Falstaff in an essay called “The Dramatic Character of Falstaff”. In this long essay, the Shakespearean literary scholar not only proposes that Shakespeare never meant Falstaff for a coward, but he also argues that Falstaff has the true courage. In nineteenth century, A.C. Bradley (Tragedy 145) continued this argument. Bradley maintains that Falstaff is not a coward, even though his behaviour sometimes appears cowardly. Later in the essay The Rejection of Falstaff, Bradley (9) called Falstaff “the most intriguing character” in Henry IV, explaining that although Falstaff is a drunkard, a thief, a liar, and a coward, he is also humorous, jovial childish, and free living—these qualities make people love him. Critics love Falstaff, some even sentimentalize and even idealize him. Harold C. Goddard (175) regards Falstaff as the third candidate for the role of “hero” in the play Henry IV. Awarded of Goddardrsquo;s passion for Falstaff, Professor Harold Bloom (“Introduction”) states his fondness for Sir John in a more sensible way. In The Invention of the Human, Bloom (44) considers Falstaff Prince Halrsquo;s spiritual father.

Those who speak for Falstaff see him as the source of humour and wit and consider him one of the greatest comic figures in the history of literature. While those who dislike him believe that he is a rogue in the essence—there is no sense of honour in him. Falstaff, to some degree, provoked the best of all critics, Dr. Johnson, into the judgment that “he has nothing in him that can be esteemed.” (qtd. in Bloom “Introduction”) “A besotted and disgusting old wrench”, Bernard Shaw calls him. (qtd. in Goddard 175) Though Shawrsquo;s idea to Falstaff might be influenced by his attitude towards Shakespeare, for Shaw showed his distaste（or perhaps envy） for Shakespearersquo;s other works as well. Long since, Falstaffrsquo;s detractors have drained the language dry to characterize him. Glutton, drunkard, coward, liar, lecher, boaster, cheat, thief, ruffian are a few of the terms that has been used to describe the figure. As Chen Xiaofeng (13) says, so far as Falstaffrsquo;s instinct is concerned, he is not as vicious as Iago, but he is not so innocent as Desdemona. Chen Chunxue and Wen Lirsquo;s study on Falstaffrsquo;s characteristics analyses the fact that Falstaff actually betrays chivalry. Indeed, he is not faithful enough, he lies about almost everything, he is a deserter in front of the war, he leads a “epicurean life” (Giles) and he sees honour as nothing. After all, his role as a shameless, dissolute and cowardly knight is enough to make the audience feel annoyed in real life. According to moral principle, Falstaff should have been disdained.

As Shakespearersquo;s best-loved and theatrically most enduring comic creation, Falstaff does have his charm and flaws. From my limited research, most criticisms on Falstaff are about his personality, his paradoxical character, his function in the play and what he represents. Falstaff as a comic figure attracts as much applaud as disapproval. Critics who speak for him adored his charming character, and those who against him detract his behaviour. I neither speak for Falstaff, nor against him. I believe that the factors about Falstaff that make people love or hate this man indicate or explain explicitly Falstaffrsquo;s ending. Is Falstaff destined to be banished? We might find that it is not a coincidence that Falstaffrsquo;s name foreshadows his fall—Falstaff, that is “fall staff”. As Bloom (Henry IV) put it, Falstaff is “not only good and evil, but cause and effect as well. Therefore, this paper will discuss the fate of Falstaff—to be more precise, analyse the characters of Falstaff, combined with the background of the story and some other elements that might influence how the story goes, and explain why Falstaff is destined to “fall” in the play.

Bibliography

Berry, Ralph. The Shakespearean Metaphor. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1980.

Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Penguin Group, 1999.

---. “Introduction,” from Henry IV, Part I (New York: Chelsea House, 1987), 1–7.

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文文献综述，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章