Something remarkable happens at the opening of Act 5.
Falstaff has come to court! Whatever Hal’s intentions regarding Falstaff, he has
dared to bring him home to Dad. Falstaff’s presence on the stage at this point
is problematic, for we have come to expect Hal to distance himself more and more
from his tavern friend.
Notice that but for a single brief utterance Falstaff
is silent throughout this scene until he and Hal are left alone (121ff.). What
does Falstaff intend when he says of Worcester, “Rebellion lay in his way,
and he found it” (28)? He’s being sarcastic here, mocking Worcester’s
professed desire not to bring the conflict to a head. To paraphrase, “You,
Worcester, speak as if rebellion is something you accidentally stumbled upon,
like tripping over a stone, when in reality it has been deliberate from the
beginning.” More importantly, WHY does Falstaff say this? What is he
trying to do here?
Wonderfully, Hal tells him to shut up: “Peace,
chewet” (29). Why? Well, for one reason, Falstaff is being highly
disrespectful in the king’s presence; he is speaking without having been spoken
to. Why else might Hal be anxious at Falstaff opening his mouth?
Jump now to the end of the scene, lines 121-26. This is
funny, to be sure: it is one of Hal’s many jabs at Falstaff’s rotundity. But
there is something sad about this too. Falstaff’s question, as far as I can
tell, has no trace of his usual irony, so that Hal’s fat-joke response seems a
cruel refusal to acknowledge his friend’s fear of dying.
Now look at Falstaff’s “honour” soliloquy
(127ff.). What is his argument here, and what do we think of it? Is it
compelling? Why or why not?
The question of honour and its value returns in 5.4 at
Hotspur’s death. At lines 76-79, Hotspur offers a view diametrically opposed to
Falstaff’s. Whereas Falstaff prefers life before honour, Hotspur would rather
die than lose his honour. And yet lines 80-85 are absolutely haunting. In this
brief utterance, Hotspur speaks in a way he never has before. Shakespeare gives
him a kind of tragic dignity, a capacity for insight and understanding just
prior to death. But what is it, exactly, that Hotspur has come to realize with
his dying breath? Are not the references to the cold earth, dust, and
“food for [worms]” strange for a man hitherto concerned more with
such abstractions as reputation and honour?
Well, Hal’s following eulogy (86-95) leaves Hotspur’s
cherished honour intact. But what of his eulogy for the “dead”
Falstaff (101-109)? How would you describe this farewell? What, finally, is
Hal’s attitude toward his friend?
Falstaff’s “resurrection” and soliloquy at
110ff. are remarkable. The bit about counterfeits is similar in spirit to the
honour soliloquy: the dead man is the true counterfeit, whereas to fake death in
order to live is no deception at all. It is, rather, to uphold “the true
and perfect image of life” (116-17). But just as it is difficult to
swallow the notion that honour is meaningless, Falstaff’s speech here is
compromised by what he has done—cowardly feigned death, led poor and
useless soldiers into battle—and by what he does now: stabs the dead
Hotspur and claims the glory for himself. Falstaff desecrating a corpse is, by
Elizabethan moral standards, a horrifying and dastardly deed. (As much as I love
the guy, I find this act more than any other utterly
reprehensible.)
What do we make of Hal’s closing commitment to Falstaff at 5.4.151-53? This is no small favour, given that killing Hotspur is the supreme glory with which Hal promised to redeem himself in the eyes of his father (3.2.132-52). Again, our expectations regarding Hal’s distancing himself from Falstaff are denied. What do you think will become of the friends’ relationship?
In 4.3, one of the king’s men, Sir Walter Blunt,
approaches the enemy camp to offer clemency on Henry’s behalf in exchange for
the rebels’ abandoning their plans (41-51). Hotspur’s response (52-88) is a
lengthy justification of the rebellion that recalls events portrayed in Richard II. We’ve thus come full circle, back to
the issue that set off the chain of events leading to armed confrontation. What,
exactly, is Hotspur’s argument here? Do you notice any inconsistencies or
contradictions?