Peace Versus Conflict

What does it mean to be human according to Henry IV, Part I?

Falstaff, from Henry IV, Part I, is one of Shakespeare’s most beloved characters.  The first question that comes to mind after that statement is, perhaps: why?  What do readers see in lazy, immoral Falstaff who drinks so much he can’t even remember the time of day?  Do they like him because of his occasional wit, his blunt statements, or the fact that he seems to be the epitome of the common man?

I propose that readers are drawn to Falstaff because he so accurately reflects not only humanity, but also the human condition.  The outer-Falstaff, his appearance and habits that some do not look beyond, is demonstrative of the human condition.  Or, in a better sense, demonstrative of typical “human” response to the human condition.  Society often equates normalcy with humanity.  If you react in a certain manner to certain stimuli, you are human—you are normal.

Falstaff is normal.  He’s our common man who best reflects the desires, struggles and pains of an “everyman.”  He responds to life with spontaneity, difficult situations with a drink, and betrayal with outrage.  His responses throughout the play are fairly typical and expected.  We, as readers, love Falstaff because we understand him.  Because he is “one of us.”

However, the inner-Falstaff, what many characters and readers overlook, represents true humanity.  This Falstaff does not seem to match the cookie-cutter standards of the rest of the characters, especially when it comes to one particular subject: honor.  One would think that honor would be a particularly uniform topic, one that most people, especially in Shakespeare’s day, would agree on.  However, Falstaff’s view of honor challenges the normal view, which I would argue actually makes him more human than the other characters.

Other characters view honor as a staple for success as a human, for success as a warrior.  Falstaff sees honor—or rather, the process one gains honor: battle—as a detriment to humanity.

“I like not such grinning honor as Sir Walter hath: give me life” -Falstaff

Falstaff’s view of honor equates the pursuit of honor with death, with war, and with unnecessary bloodshed.  In fact, Falstaff’s sentiments here almost seem to be an early anti-war statement, a huge contrast to the other characters.

War plays a prominent role in Henry IV, Part I, driving the plot and creating character tensions.  War is, it seems, an inescapable fact of the human condition.  Because of the selfishness, the greed and the hate that are a part of the human condition, war occurs, and sadly, there seems to be not enough humanity to temper the anger.  Falstaff’s anti-war statements here and other places throughout the play do not stop the war.  They do not save any lives.  They perhaps even go unnoticed by the reader.

I would argue that to be human is to desire peace and understanding over war and bloodshed.  The disconnect lies in a couple situations, the first of which is that not enough people make the choice to be human.  Though they may internally desire peace, they do not act upon their desire and do nothing to stop war, or lesser evils, such as hate and greed.   The second lies in society’s glorification of war—in the equating of war with honor, glory and power.  The other characters in Henry IV, Part I, see war as a means to attain honor.  Falstaff, our very human character, sees war as a means to destroy humanity.

The desire for peace permeates literature.  Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I.  Leslie Marmon Silko’s Ceremony.  Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried.  The desire seeps into our music.  John Lennon’s “Imagine.”  The Guess Who’s “American Woman.”  The Beatles’ “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.”  The desire for peace is in us, surrounding us, and presented to us.  Then why, I ask, do we keep pursuing conflict?

Humanity does not want conflict.  The human condition, unfortunately, provides it.