“…My old lad of the castle.”

Nicole DiRado 2011

It is known by Shakespearean scholars across the world that William Shakespeare borrowed his material from various sources, even history.  And Shakespeare is also known for his memorable characters.  Perhaps one of the most memorable is that of Sir John Falstaff.  There have been many branches of commentary on the origins of Falstaff.  There is interpretation of him as the Vice character of the morality plays that were popular in Elizabethan times.  Falstaff has also been interpreted as the Lord of Misrule, who during Christmas celebrations, was chosen to preside over the revelry.  There is one interpretation that mirrors his historical origins however: Falstaff as a model of Christianity.  Odd though this interpretation may seem, it reflects Falstaff’s historical origins as Sir John Oldcastle who was preached by his followers as martyr and considered by many to be so. Several scholars have expounded upon the idea of Falstaff as a Christian character, which I believe to result directly from his historical connection to Sir John Oldcastle, a leader in the Lollard Protestant reform movement.

Who is Sir John Oldcastle, other than a rather elusive personality of history?  He is perhaps best known for his part in the Lollards movement of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. A medieval Protestant reform movement started by John Wyclif, it was largely unsuccessful due to the claims of heresy by Church leaders.  John Wyclif was also under scrutiny for his translation of the Bible from the Latin vulgate into the vernacular of the time: English.  The Lollard movement criticized many of the Church’s practices and especially its great wealth with so many living in abject poverty.  Falstaff’s criticism of Hotspur and his notions of honor seem to mimic Oldcastle’s critique of the Catholic Church and its leaders.

Falstaff mocks Hotspur’s notions of honor at the end of act five, scene one where he states:

What is honor? A word. What is in that word “honor”?  What is that “honor”?  Air.  A trim reckoning! Who hath it?  He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No.  ’Tis insensible then?  Yea, to the dead.  But will it not live with the living? No.  … Therefore I’ll none of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism. (Bevington 406)

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Shakespeare has Falstaff declare this as his “catechism” (a question and answer text best recognized in its Catholic form) as Oldcastle’s religious rebellion was against the Catholic Church.  There could be a remnant of the character of Sir John Oldcastle in Falstaff’s declaration against honor in this selection of the text.  Falstaff’s assertion of the lack of reliability in honor mimics that argument made by the historical Oldcastle against the authority of the Church and her officials: that they are false, faulty and in need of reform.  Shakespeare could be giving Falstaff’s comments validity; by equating his outburst with that of a martyr, Falstaff is given lofty principles as opposed to cowardly ideologies.  On the other hand, Shakespeare could be undercutting Falstaff by reminding the audience that Oldcastle was executed for treason to the crown.  In this interpretation, Falstaff is a threat to Hal’s authority and a danger to the throne of England.

Shakespeare seems to mimic a fall from grace on Oldcastle’s part with a falling out between Hal and Falstaff when the Prince of Wales is crowned king.  Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, was noted for his valuable military service to King Henry IV, and was especially noted for his campaign in Wales.  During these campaigns, the Lord Cobham befriended the Prince of Wales, later King Henry V.  Oldcastle was also deeply devoted to the teachings of John Wyclif and became a leader of the Lollardy movement.  For his devotion, he was convicted of heresy and imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1413 during the reign of his former friend, King Henry V.  Oldcastle did manage to escape, and continued his leadership in the Lollardy movement.  However, he was recaptured in 1417 and executed by hanging over a fire.

Oldcastle the heretic was viewed as a threat to King Henry V.  In an analogous analysis, Falstaff is also viewed as a threat to Hal’s reputation and to his authority as a ruler.  If Oldcastle and Falstaff are parallels and Falstaff’s dismissal by Hal is seen as necessary, then this would weaken the legitimacy of Oldcastle’s cause.  Yet, Shakespeare could be indirectly criticizing the monarchy for its dismissal of Falstaff and consequently for the execution of Oldcastle.

With all this in mind, Sir John Oldcastle, the Lord Cobham, could likely have been remembered by Shakespeare’s audience (as well as by Shakespeare himself) as a martyr.  However, the character created by Shakespeare would have garnered more amusement than respect in audiences of 1 Henry IV.  Modern scholarly interpretation of his character as a Vice character of morality plays or as the Lord of Misrule provides evidence of this mindset.  The historical figure and Shakespeare’s Oldcastle at first glance have in common only their friendship with Prince Hal, their fall from his favor, and their name.  However the seeming immorality of Oldcastle’s character in 1 Henry IV upset his ancestors, namely William Brooke, Lord Cobham, who “just happened to be Lord Chamberlain, the Official Personage in Charge of Royal Entertainment” (Plotkin, Silverbush 86).  Despite what his intentions were, Shakespeare was forced to change Oldcastle’s name: he chose the name Falstaff.

Armed with the knowledge of Falstaff’s historical origins, the reader can take a closer look at Falstaff.  Does this knowledge perhaps change the reader’s view of Falstaff as an immoral character?  Several scholars have enumerated on the idea of Falstaff as a Christian character, some attesting this to his historic origins as Oldcastle, including Roy Battenhouse: “…The relation of Falstaff to the martyr Oldcastle, a matter that scholars have puzzled over…is a relation of paradoxical affinity” (Bloom 54).  These “paradoxical affinities” would reveal many of Falstaff’s actions as Christian in nature!  Battenhouse cites the Bible to support his claim (I Cor. 27: 19 Geneva translation): “We approve ourselves…by honour and dishonor, by evil reporte and good reporte, as deceivers, yet true” (Bloom 55, my emphasis).  This quote would reveal Falstaff’s character to be deceptive, yet Christian; he deceives in order to be a good follower of Christ, to secretly witness as the ancient Christians did (Bloom 55).  In this interpretation, Falstaff is unruly, a great drinker, and a liar due to his Christian nature.  Far-fetched, but it is all made possible by his descent from martyrdom.

Albert H. Tolman refers to the “evil companions of the Prince” in The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth in which Oldcastle is one of the companions (Tolman 4).  If Hal’s companions are indeed “evil,” then it would not be farfetched to conclude that Falstaff is based off an “evil” man, a cowardly heretic!  In this case Falstaff would be the antithesis of a good Christian man, rebelling against the Church and behaving in a selfish and indulgent matter.  He is a coward in this point of view.  But Maurice Morgan in his Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff argues for Falstaff’s courage!  He states:  “I do not clearly discern that Sir John Falstaff deserves to bear the character so generally given him of an absolute Coward…I do not conceive Shakespeare ever meant to make Cowardice an essential part of his constitution” (2).  Courage and cowardice in battle would appear to be a direct link to a man’s piety in Shakespearean drama.  Whenever the “good” side begins a battle a call upon God is made or an encouraging statement is made about how God is on their side as they are justified in their cause.

If courage and cowardice are reflections of a man’s piety, then the argument for the sake of Falstaff would appear to go either way.  As a manifestation of Oldcastle the esteemed warrior for King Henry IV in Wales, Falstaff would be the Christian man argued for by some scholars.  But if Falstaff is a mockery of Oldcastle (as perceived by his ancestor William Brooke), his apparent cowardly actions in 1 Henry IV would have legitimized the idea of the Lollard leader as a proponent of heresy.  Morgann goes on to say that Shakespeare may have “contrived to make secret Impressions upon us of Courage” (13).  Morgann’s argument here links to Battenhouse’s argument: that Falstaff’s Christian nature is revealed through his deception!  In an interpretation such as this, even the cowardice of Falstaff would attest to Oldcastle’s (and, as a result his own) Christian piety!

Whether Sir John Oldcastle was a heretic, martyr (or both) remains a very ambiguous question.  Shakespeare’s character, be his name Oldcastle or Falstaff, has certainly intrigued and fascinated scholars from the beginning.  There is interpretation of him as the Vice character of the morality plays, and as the Lord of Misrule.  Yet, there is one interpretation that mirrors his historical origins: Falstaff as a model of Christianity.  Though this interpretation is odd (and at times needs serious twisting of thought), it reflects Falstaff’s historical origins as Sir John Oldcastle considered by many to be a martyr.

Works Cited:

Battenhouse, Roy. "Roy Battenhouse on Falstaff's Christian Nature." Bloom's Notes :William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One. Ed. Harold Bloom. Broomall, PA: Chelsea House, 1996. 53-56.

"English Dissenters: Lollards." ExLibris. 1 Jan. 2008. 7 Nov. 2008 <http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/lollards.html>.

Morgann, Maurice. Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff. London: T. Davies, 1912.

Shakespeare, William. "The First Part of King Henry the Fourth." The Necessary Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson, 2005. 370-411.

Works Consulted:

Brooks, Douglas A. "Sir John Oldcastle and the construction of Shakespeare's Authorship." Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. 7 Nov. 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3437/is_n2_v38/ai_n2870436/print?tag>.

Silverbush, Rhona, and Sami Plotkin. Speak the Speech! Shakespeare's Monologues Illuminated. New York, NY: Faber and Faber, Inc., 2002. 83-86.

Tolman, Albert H. "Why Did Shakespeare create Flastaff?" Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 34 (1919): 1-15.