It's good to be king, they say. What is perhaps not so good is being close enough to the king to have the opportunity to tell the truth when you clearly see that someone needs it and no one will. Kings, of course, lie under the illusion that they were anointed by God to take their positions of power and with that anointing came a certain sense of infallibility. Even those kings who did not believe in that concept were in no hurry to disillusion the concept among their subjects. Presidents and prime ministers may (or may not) consider themselves invested with power by the grace of God, but perhaps the illusion of infallibility is only heightened by being placed under the will of masses far more tangibly understood than any supreme power. being. History is full of moments where someone close enough to the king to see the truth and speak it held back for fear of retaliation for questioning infallibility, just as it is also full of moments where the truth was put before fear of retaliation. Those who in the latter managed to survive the danger of speaking truth to power most likely did so thanks to at least some loyalty to Falstaff in William Shakespeare's Henry, IV Parts I and II since the fat knight is one of the most great instructors on how to proceed down the dangerous path of speaking the truth to those in power while keeping your head firmly attached to your shoulders. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Of course, the iconic Shakespearean character who represents the ability to be brutally honest with the king is Lear's Fool. But we are given insight into that complicated relationship only after Lear has ceased to be king. Lost power is no power at all. The power that can come when a prince becomes king is something entirely different and assures Falstaff that "the practical solutions are almost certain: Hal cannot continue his tavern brawl. Behind his wit and irreverence beats the heart of true prince, as Falstaff well knows” (Williams 127). . Falstaff, all-consuming and defiant, becomes the stand-in for Hal's father, King Henry IV, whenever the prince goes undercover as a wastrel. Significantly, Falstaff provides advice that could have been phrased in almost the same language by his father when he advises." There is one thing, Harry, which you have often heard of, and is known to many in our land by the name of pitch: this pitch, as the ancient writers report, defiles; so does the company you keep" (Shakespeare 430). Both father figures obviously have much experienced advice to dispense to the young heir, but the difference between them is that Henry IV is king and Falstaff is Falstaff. Inside of this difference lies a greater gulf than any appetite shown by Falstaff. The king may feel free to speak directly to his son in complete honesty, however, he must proceed with the utmost caution despite perhaps having far more useful advice for the young prince. and despite, perhaps, being a much greater source of experience to rule over the common people Falstaff certainly recognizes the vital importance of a particular aspect related to the royal future of his drinking companion which eludes his father, the King, as. refers to those common people. “Falstaff ruthlessly broods the prince's conscience over his family's theft of the crown” (Caldwell). Well, maybe, but moreprobably because Falstaff is able to peer into the future and understand the problems Prince Hal will face? sit on a throne if there is still a sense of illegitimacy among the people in his sitting there. He is able to, however, dispense advice of a more cutting nature only by expressing it in theatrical or comic terms. The result, however, is not diminished by the need to frame the truths within an ironic system of transmission. It is a fact that in both parts of Henry IV Hal is a remarkably manipulative character who seeks Falstaff's company only partly for its entertainment value and "if Hal's deceptive role-playing seems Machiavellian, c 'there is an obvious difference between his performances and those of Falstaff...Falstaff plays for pleasure while Hal plays for advantage' (McKinney). This last description may not be entirely true, of course, since Falstaff has an advantage in playing a role. The delivery of hard truths to those who wish not to hear them or by those who seem unqualified to offer criticism based on their own opinions. errors are usually easier to deliver when transmission occurs within a role-playing framework. Thus, the vast array of jokes, puns, and theatrics that make up the speech between Falstaff and Prince Hal may, in fact, all be part of Falstaff's pursuit of advantage. The story that Falstaff tells of what happened during that robbery allows us to understand very well the character of the relationship existing between the old fat knight and the future king. How else could Prince Hal react after hearing "By God, I knew you as well as he who created you. Why, listen, my masters: was it mine to slay the heir? Should I turn to the true prince?" ? Why, you know that I am as valiant as Hercules: but beware of instinct; the lion will not touch the true prince. Instinct is a big deal. I was a coward by instinct" (Shakespeare 429). It is a brilliantly conceived means of saving face because in that span of those few short sentences there is an amalgamation of what Hal knows to be absolute lies, absolute truth and a vague admixture of both of them. This is the nature of the special code that exists between them. Both are acutely aware of the explicit and implicit meaning it takes on when speaking to each other and of the fact that Falstaff expresses his harsh truths behind a comic facade as Hal's father. both direct and direct is highly suggestive. The truth is that although Henry IV has no impediment in speaking plainly and simply to his son while Falstaff must provide some entertainment to Hal to deem him worthy as a Machiavellian advisor he can reveal that he actually is. Falstaff the superior advisor to a prince rather than to the king himself. Such is the deceptively close alignment between king and knight that “Falstaff, despite being such an entertaining character, seems to seriously imitate at least part of a royal speech; however, the speech is organized so that first he can playfully tease the friend (first by calling him illegitimate); secondly, it can move on to the condemnation of Hal's friends; and third (as shown below), he can use his own deliberative argument" (Sweat). In the end, of course, Hal will keep his promise to banish fat Falstaff from all over the world, but there's no reason to accept that exile. as a personal indictment of Falstaff, much less of his value in speaking the truth to the potential power invested in the Prince, Prince Hal will prove capable of banishing anyone who has outlived his usefulness for his plans to take his place on the throne It is worth noting that when the, 1993.