A Dionysian Ethic in Shakespeare?

"...banish plump Jack, and banish all the world."

This line comes from Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, in Act II Scene IV. It is the defense of what would seem a rascal of a character, and possibly a good defense at that. I am exploring the idea of it as a final paper topic. So, before I even bring writing a critical paper, I wanted to write about it here and get a real for what I believe concerning this literary character (in more than one sense of the word).

What does it mean to banish Jack Falstaff? What is Jack Falstaff. Okay, I think Falstaff is the representation of the more raw nature of humanity. He lacks most the 'Apollonian' structures of social graces and responsibilities, celebrating a form of life that seeks to live day to day. Now, obviously, I have some knee-jerk reactions to the idea, and rightly so, but to dismiss it completely would be sin. In Aristotle's words, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I am attempting to be educated.

Okay, so if Jack Falstaff is what Nietzsche would call the Dionysian, or is at least, similar to it (for I do not know all the nuanced characteristics of Nietzsche nor Falstaff, but from my readings, they do seem extraordinarily similar), then why would be it banishing the world to banish plump Jack? Perhaps the idea lies in Binary Opposition (or rather, as Nietzsche would put it - in that the Apollonian structures are false ((there is no order in the universe, just what is)), so consequently, only that can be the world). I don't know what seems more probably my stated reason or my parenthetical.

If it is Binary Opposition, it would imply that banishing Jack would be banishing the entirety of the world, because without the less noble ideals, how could we know the more noble ones? How could we be more human without seeing the scope of humanity? This also implies that Jack knows what he is doing and is content with it.

If it is Nietzsche's view, it is much simpler. If we banish Jack (who represents what he calls the Dionysian ((he also claims that only what is real))), we would denying what truly is life. Nietzsche wants to affirm life and whatever happens in life. And that is the real - the order we write unto it is our own thinking and doing, attempting to create order out of chaos.

Jack seems to want to live as well, but I don't know what we can say that he affirms everything that happens in life. He definitely is not the Übermensch Nietzsche wants man to become. But his instance on life, on living beyond responsibility, as an individual, critiquing the king the way he does, implies (I would say) a type of Dionysian ethic.

And how should we respond to this call? We need to affirm what is life-affirming. Which brings into question, what is life-affirming? In the play, Falstaff is mainly arguing, as I see it, against the war and ideals behind it, wanting people to drink and be happy (for tomorrow, we shall die). I would agree with him that war is not life-affirming, but perhaps not swing as far as he does into total laxity. There is responsibility. Every choice we make everyday, every hour, needs to be life-affirming. Responsibility is embedded into every choice. And we need to embrace Falstaff in order to affirm his life and to suggest a better way. We cannot banish that with which we disagreed, but we should love. Love is the last word.