just any two critics to even come to some agreement;
(2) it indicates that over the centuries many critics have not only posited Falstaff in the comic tradition but viewed him as the supreme clown or jester, surpassing all other such characters in the theater during the Renaissance and all time; (3) a critic's reaction to the Windsor Falstaff often affects that critic's overall reaction to the entire comedy itself; and (4) a few critics − such as Traversi in 1938 and Holland in 1965 − have also remarked on the distinction between the Falstaff of 1 Henry IV and the one in 2 Henry IV.
One other notion seems worth mentioning as well. Some of the early criticism is clearly based upon a viewing of the play rather than a reading of the text. The performance of Falstaff as he appears on stage in The Merry Wives of Windsor must not only be considered, but is actually crucial to connecting the figure of the three plays as one character (who, nevertheless, undergoes a series of changes). Records appear to indicate that the actor who played the Eastcheap Falstaff in Shakespeare's day also performed the role of the Windsor Falstaff.2 So much of the character depends upon physical presence and nuance that if a different, and indeed lesser, actor assumes the role of the Windsor Falstaff, not only is the character affected, but so too is the entire comedy of Merry Wives.
***