Shakespeare's theatrical productions, in their portrayal of aristocratic and royal subjects, indirectly comment on the nature of and boundaries between social classes. The realization that the actors who convincingly play the parts of kings and queens on the stage are mere commoners unavoidably inquires into those qualities that differentiate between nobility and peasantry, suggesting the conclusion that there are none. Ironically, it is under these circumstances that King Henry IV, Part I, attempts to distinguish between a good ruler and the common man. The metadramatical moment of Act II, scene iv, in which Falstaff and Hal take turns playing the part of the King, seems to argue against the notion that the peasantry and nobility are interchangeable, thus refuting the previously mentioned theatrical effect. It is the intent of this essay to further explore the implications of this scene and to thereby attempt to reconcile those implications with the social criticism inherent to the common-man production of a play about nobility.

An examination of Falstaff's remarks preceding this play-within-a-play makes it clear that he has set the dialogue up as a forum to discuss the legitimacy of his character within a noble context. An implied rift between Hal and Falstaff, the result of their differing social statuses, has been obvious since the beginning of the play, where Falstaff immediately calls attention to the inevitable disparity of their respective fates. "Do not thou," he implores of Hal, "when thou art king, hang a thief" (I.ii.62) Despite their comradeship, Hal denies Falstaff the answer he wants to this and other such inquiries, refusing to reconcile the disparity between his kingly self and his thieving friends. By the time the reader approaches the dialogue of Act II, scene iv, this tension is omnipresent, manifesting itself in Falstaff's need, in order to be worthy of Hal's company, to make himself appear more important than he truly is. Because this dialogue occurs shortly after Hal's revelation that it was he who had ambushed Falstaff earlier in the night, the reader can naturally expect Falstaff, with his wounded pride, to attempt to justify himself. It is he who initiates the play-within-a-play by proposing that Hal "practice an answer" (375). His failure to allow Hal a chance to answer, coupled with his onslaught of self-aggrandizing remarks, show that his intent in this dialogue is far from helping Hal answer his father. Thus, Shakespeare, through Falstaff, effectively establishes this dialogue as a debate between Hal and Falstaff's respective social classes.

If the fact that members of a lower social class constitute the actors who play the King and Prince helps blur the difference between classes, the metadrama of Falstaff playing the King or Prince further emphasizes the class conflict. Falstaff, falling into his role as the King with the statement, "stand aside, nobility" (389), calls the audience's attention to transformation that is about to take place. This transformation is essential to his argument to Hal (and, indirectly, to the audience) that he, as a commoner, is as capable of being noble as is the aristocracy. Acting as implied audience to the play-within-the-play, the Hostess echoes the real audience's own astonishment at Falstaff's ability to transform himself into a king: "O, the father, how he holds his countenance!" (392). Furthermore, Falstaff's rhetoric as King regarding both Hal and himself, directly bring this argument to both implied and intended audiences. He first of all asks "Shall the son of England prove a thief and take purses?" (410), a question which, despite the implication that this is a quality undesirable in nobility, makes the virtue of England's aristocracy suspect. Secondly, he insists that there is "virtue" in his own "looks" (427-428), arguing for a system of social classification that is "known by the fruit" rather than heritage. The point he wishes to make is obvious—if he, as a commoner, can have the virtue which much of the aristocracy lacks, what is the point of punishing the lower class for the lack of virtue its social status occasionally forces upon it?

Hal, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge this as a legitimate argument. He interrupts the play and tells Falstaff, essentially, that his attempt to transform himself into the King has failed. Then, to put Falstaff in his place, he assumes the part of the King and immediately calls Falstaff a "villainous abominable misleader of youth" (462-63). In so doing, Hal swiftly reverses the metadrama. He is suddenly in his normal place as a noble, while his words reduce Falstaff back to his position as a commoner. Falstaff, in his last attempt to establish the legitimacy of his noble claim, argues that he, "as plump Jack," stands for "all the world" (480). Evidently, he hopes to appeal to Hal's intimacy with the world of the commoner, which intimacy becomes more meaningful if the audience recognizes that Falstaff's words reflect Hal's own attitude. If Hal is to "banish" the world of "plump Jack," Falstaff argues, he must reject all that he has come to cherish on account of his friendship with the commoner. To Falstaff's shock, Hal replies "I do, I will" (481), showing that even friendship cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the common man and a noble birthright.

That Hal should come to this conclusion is somewhat shocking considering both Hal's attitude towards Falstaff at other points in the play and the effort with which Shakespeare so carefully sets up this argument. If, the audience must ask, Hal honestly believes the common man to be inferior to himself, why is Hal so concerned when he sees Falstaff supposedly dead on the ground? Or why would Shakespeare spend so much time proposing the idea that class truly is irrelevant, if he intends to come to a conclusion that is already status quo. Perhaps the only solution to these questions is that Hal is representative of the noble ideal rather than class. In other words, Shakespeare intends that Hal will eventually embody those qualities that nobility should possess, rather than simply using the noble birthright as grounds for superiority. Indeed, Hal indicates in Act I, scene ii, that he aspires to "imitate the sun." If such is the case, then his rejection of Falstaff's villainous nature is justified, in that, if he were to be satisfied with such a lifestyle, the commonness of it would "violently carry [him] away from grace" (447).

Considering Hal's eventual fate, as depicted in Henry V, it would be reasonable to assume that this is Shakespeare's intention. Hal's relationship with Falstaff, then, regains its significance because it first of all shows that a common man is as important of a companion to a good ruler as is a noble man. The very fact that Hal can have such a relationship with a commoner makes his virtue more attainable. Meanwhile, under this interpretative template, it is apparent that the rift that exists between Falstaff and Hal is not that of social class, but of mental class. While Falstaff is satisfied with his commonness, Hal ascribes to higher ideals such as honor, thus bringing it's play to its ultimate social message—nobility is a matter of aspiration and sincerity. This nobility is accessible to anyone with those qualities, a fact which is punctuated by the metadramatical interplay between classes. The realization of this fact is capable of liberating the common man from his own baseness.