Garg 1

Rishi Garg
English 10, 1st Period
Mr. Fox
29 May 2008
Critical Response 2

This critical response will focus on two pieces of literary criticism: one

from “The Rejection of Falstaff”, written by A. C. Bradley, and another from

“Falstaff in 1 Henry IV: What’s in a Name?”, written by Robert F. Willson. In

his criticism of Henry IV, Part One, Bradley states that Falstaff is not a

coward, and provides evidence to substantiate his claim. In the second

criticism, Willson shows how Falstaff’s name is symbolic of the character’s

cowardice and gluttony. Clearly, these two pieces of criticism are opposing in

claims and theories. It would be valuable to analyze each author’s theories

and discern which claims are agreeably justified.

In the first criticism, Bradley maintains that Falstaff is not a coward. He

begins by defining the word coward: “a person who feels painful fear in the

presence of danger, and yields to that fear in spite of his better feelings and

convictions”. This is a satisfactory definition, and one that the general

population would probably agree with. Bradley says that if we believe in that

definition, Falstaff cannot be a coward. His first piece of evidence involves

Falstaff’s role as commander of one of King Henry’s regiments. It is

agreeable to say that if Falstaff was truly a coward, he would have stayed

behind and sent his troops into battle by themselves. During the battle,

Falstaff says: “I have led my ragamuffins where they are peppered” (5.3.38-

39). This shows that Falstaff, instead of staying behind, actually led his

troops into battle. Bradley’s second piece of evidence is from Act 2, Scene 4,
 Garg 2

where Falstaff is hiding from a sheriff in the pub. Bradley says that the fact

that Falstaff fell asleep instead of quaking in fear shows his non-cowardice.

This is a very good point, because if Falstaff was truly a coward, he probably

would have at least stayed awake, if not shaken in fear.

In the second criticism, Willson argues that Falstaff’s name was dubbed

carefully by Shakespeare in order to show the character’s cowardice and

gluttony. His first piece of evidence is the thought that Falstaff’s name

sounds like “fallen staff”. Willson says this is fitting because Falstaff is often

dropping his weapon and running away from acts of discretion. For example,

just after Falstaff is robbed by Hal and Poins, the prince says: “the thieves

are all scattered” (2.2.110), indicating that Falstaff ran away. Here, Willson’s

theory seems sound. His second piece of evidence lies in the belief that the

second syllable of Falstaff’s name means “staple” or “staff of life”, or simply

food. Willson states that this highlights Falstaff’s gluttony and lust for

alcohol. This is yet another reasonable claim. Willson’s theories are

extremely simple, and don’t have any objectionable parts.

Although both of the authors’ theories seem believable, each of the

authors wrote about opposite beliefs. Both authors’ theories are right, but on

different levels. Bradley’s claim that Falstaff is not a coward is substantiated

by specific events in the play. Throughout his criticism, Bradley focuses on

one general theory and gives numerous examples to prove it. In contrast,

Willson has four different theories, but has minimal specific references to

scenes in the play. This makes his entire criticism seem cluttered and only

slightly proved. Although Willson’s theories appear obvious and thereby true,
 Garg 3

Bradley’s investigation delves deeper into Falstaff’s character. Willson simply

“scratches the surface”, and looks at the visibly obvious. Therefore, one

would be more attracted to Willson’s theories, but in reality, Bradley’s theory

gives a more insightful and perceptive look into the personality of the

complex character that is Falstaff.