When I think about how this play relates to my big question (if mankind is strong or fragile), I immediately think of Falstaff. He epitomizes a true man, yet he is hurt intensely by Hal near the end of the play. In this, he shows weakness. This confuses me. If Falstaff is so genuine, shouldn't he have the inner strength to defend himself from others' attacks? Or does truth not have anything to do with strength or weakness? Maybe by living a genuine lifestyle, one is more vulnerable to weakness although they are strong. Maybe strength comes from the ability to survive through moments of weakness. Maybe individuals are either strong or weak, but that is determined by whether they can overcome those weaknesses. Falstaff is hurt by Hal, but he doesn't give up. Falstaff continues to fight and tells Hal that he will be there for him if the prince changes his mind. Falstaff in this way is strong.
From Henry IV Part 1, it appears that mankind proves to be strong when they can persevere despite the strife they endure. Their ability to overcome is the determining factor.
Yes, so much depends upon how you define strength and weakness. I like the comment about how being genuine allows for one to be hurt (which, in my book, is a strength). I like this observation:
ReplyDeleteFalstaff is hurt by Hal, but he doesn't give up.
That sounds like strength in terms of endurance, perseverance.