Falstaff's Preoccupation Of The Truth In Henry IV
preoccupations of our time and place. Whenever people attempt to enter the minds of an earlier time, they inevitably do so by distorting the lens of the basic cultural perspectives.
Henry IV frequently draws attention to critics who argue about the existence of various versions of the past events. Characters can inevitably recreate the past in the context of present desires[CITATION Wil12 \p 101 \l 1033 ]. For example, an angry Hotspur reworks Richard II’s deposition into a shameful and an unjust act so that Richard can turn out as a sweet and lovely rose and not a canker Bolingbroke. Henry, on his part tells a different when describing the “skipping king” Richard. Nonetheless, the most obvious retelling in the play is Falstaff’s spectacularly overstated interpretation of the Gadshill robbery. Similar to a game of Chinese whispers, the particulars of the robbery rapidly fly away from the truth with each narration. When Hotspur becomes disgusted at Glendower’s fantastic account he advises, “Tell the truth, and shame the devil.” Despite this statement, the truth is one of the rarest commodities in the world of this tragedy. The …show more content…
His loss to France really put a big blemish on his record. He is also dismissed as an almost pathetically led king who lacked the nous in political judgment. Edward IV, on the other hand, is described as a decent enough ruler who grew prematurely aged by drink and debauch and opened the way for usurpation for the malevolent Richard III. On the controversial issue regarding Richard III’s wickedness, Norwich disagrees with those stating that he was a much-maligned emperor, stating that he was a ruler devoid of principle and conscience and would do anything to satisfy his political ambitions[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. Norwich further alludes that there is little doubt in Richard III’s role in the murder of Edward V, his 12-year-old brother and the rightful heir to his
Henry IV frequently draws attention to critics who argue about the existence of various versions of the past events. Characters can inevitably recreate the past in the context of present desires[CITATION Wil12 \p 101 \l 1033 ]. For example, an angry Hotspur reworks Richard II’s deposition into a shameful and an unjust act so that Richard can turn out as a sweet and lovely rose and not a canker Bolingbroke. Henry, on his part tells a different when describing the “skipping king” Richard. Nonetheless, the most obvious retelling in the play is Falstaff’s spectacularly overstated interpretation of the Gadshill robbery. Similar to a game of Chinese whispers, the particulars of the robbery rapidly fly away from the truth with each narration. When Hotspur becomes disgusted at Glendower’s fantastic account he advises, “Tell the truth, and shame the devil.” Despite this statement, the truth is one of the rarest commodities in the world of this tragedy. The …show more content…
His loss to France really put a big blemish on his record. He is also dismissed as an almost pathetically led king who lacked the nous in political judgment. Edward IV, on the other hand, is described as a decent enough ruler who grew prematurely aged by drink and debauch and opened the way for usurpation for the malevolent Richard III. On the controversial issue regarding Richard III’s wickedness, Norwich disagrees with those stating that he was a much-maligned emperor, stating that he was a ruler devoid of principle and conscience and would do anything to satisfy his political ambitions[CITATION Mic002 \p np \l 1033 ]. Norwich further alludes that there is little doubt in Richard III’s role in the murder of Edward V, his 12-year-old brother and the rightful heir to his