Perhaps the biggest reason for Falstaff's enduring popularity - many commentators consider him the greatest of comic characters - is the fact that he first appears in histories, not comedies. Thus, he stands out starkly from all the soldiers, princes, rebels, etc. who are running about and ranting about war and honour. Imagine what a liberating thing it must have been to hear a character, in the middle of a battle, say such things as:

Can honour set to a leg? no: or

an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.

Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is

honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what

is that honour? 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. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore

I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so

ends my catechism.

(1H4.5.1)

Think of how many comedians, from Charlie Chaplin to the men of Monty Python, were influenced by this counter-historical positioning. And somehow he still retains his freshness and ability to surprise. In the two parts of Henry IV, that is, because the only other play he appears in - The Merry Wives of Windsor, a comedy of course - is not loved by Falstaffians, for reasons that were discussed yesterday. I'll give my own thoughts on the play tomorrow.