It is good to be king, they say. What may not be so great is being close enough to the king to have the opportunity to speak the truth when you clearly see someone's need and no one will. Kings, of course, lied under the delusion that they were anointed by God to hold their positions of power and with this anointing came a certain sense of infallibility. Even kings who did not themselves adhere to this concept were in no hurry to disabuse this notion among their subjects. Presidents and prime ministers may (or may not) view themselves as empowered by the grace of God, but perhaps the illusion of infallibility is only reinforced by the fact that they are placed by the grace of God. will of the masses, much more concretely understood than any supreme power. be. History is full of moments when someone close enough to the king to see the truth and tell it held back for fear of reprisal for questioning infallibility, just as it is also full of moments when the truth been placed before the fear of reprisals. Those of the latter who managed to survive the peril of speaking truth to power most likely did so through at least some allegiance to Falstaff in William Shakespeare's Henry, IV Parts I and II, for the fat knight is l 'one of the greatest instructors on how to do this. on 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Of course, the iconic Shakespeare character who represents the ability to be brutally honest with the king is Lear's Fool. But we only get a glimpse of this complicated relationship after Lear ceases to be king. Lost power is not power at all. The power that can arise when a prince becomes king is something else entirely and assures Falstaff that “the practical solutions are practically determined: Hal cannot continue his tavern brawls. Beneath his wit and casualness beats the heart of the true prince, as Falstaff knows well. knows” (Williams 127). It cannot be denied that Falstaff plays a role comparable to that of Lear's Fool to some extent, but as an advisor his role is to guide young Hal on his path to the throne. The lazy and dismissed must necessarily stand out. The all-consuming, pun-inducing Falstaff becomes the stand-in for Hal's father, King Henry IV, whenever the prince comes across as a wastrel. Significantly, Falstaff gives advice that could have been phrased with almost equal language from his father when he advises. There is one thing, Harry, of which you have often heard, and which is known to many in our country by the name of pitch: that pitch, as the ancient writers relate, is unclean; the company you keep too” (Shakespeare 430). Both father figures obviously have plenty of advice gained through experience to dispense to the young heir apparent, but the difference between them is that Henry IV is king and Falstaff is Falstaff. In this difference There is a gulf greater than any appetite Falstaff manifested. The king may feel free to speak directly to his son with complete honesty, but Falstaff must proceed with the greatest caution, even though he may have much more useful advice for the young prince and despite, perhaps, being a much greater source of experience in governing ordinary people. Falstaff certainly recognizes the vital importance of a particular aspect linked to the royal future of his companion.drinking that escapes his father, the king, as far as these ordinary people are concerned. “Falstaff mercilessly pricks the prince's conscience over his family's theft of the crown” (Caldwell) Why? Because he can? Well, maybe, but more likely because Falstaff is able to look into the future and grasp the problems that Prince Hal will face. to sit on a throne if there is still among the people a feeling of illegitimacy in sitting there. He is capable ofHowever, it is enough to give advice of a more cutting nature by presenting it in a theatrical or comic form. The result is nevertheless not attenuated by the need to frame the truths in an ironic system of transmission. It is a fact that in both parts of Henry IV, Hal is an extraordinarily manipulative character who only seeks Falstaff's company partly because of its entertainment value and "if Hal's deceptive role-playing seems Machiavellian, there is an obvious difference between his performance and Hal's." of Falstaff...Falstaff plays for fun while Hal plays for advantage" (McKinney). Of course, the latter description may not be entirely true, as Falstaff has the advantage of playing a role .errors are generally easier to achieve when this transmission takes place in the context of a role play Thus, the wide range of jokes, puns and stage directions that make up the speech between Falstaff and the prince. Hal may, in fact, be part of Falstaff's pursuit of advantage. The story Falstaff tells of what happened during this flight gives a good insight into the character of the relationship between the big old knight. and the future king, how else could Prince Hal react to hearing “By the Lord, I knew you as well as he who created you Well, listen to you, my masters: was it mine to. kill the heir apparent? should I turn against the real prince? “Well, you know 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's a brilliant way to save face, because within those few short sentences is an amalgamation of what Hal knows to be absolute lies, an absolute truth, and a vague mixture of both. This is the nature of the special code that exists between them. They are both acutely aware of the explicit and implicit meaning that occurs during the discourse between them and the fact that Falstaff presents his harsh truths behind a comical facade while Hal's father is direct and very suggestive. The truth is that although Henry IV faces no obstacle in speaking plainly and simply to his son while Falstaff must provide a certain amount of entertainment for Hal to deem him worthy as a Machiavellian advisor may reveal that it is in fact Falstaff who is the senior advisor to a prince rather than the king himself. The deceptively close alignment between king and knight is such that “Falstaff, although such a humorous character, seems earnestly to imitate at least part of a royal speech; however, the speech is organized in such a way that he can first jokingly mock his friend (first by calling him illegitimate); second, it can move on to a condemnation of Hal's friends; and third (as discussed below), he can use his own deliberative argument” (Sweat). Ultimately, of course, Hal will keep his promise to banish big Falstaff from the whole world, but there is no reason to accept this banishment. as a personal accusation of Falstaff, much less his value in telling the truth in the face of the potential power invested in the prince., 1993.