Language Means Everything

Heather Solt 2009

Over the decades, critics continue to observe and review the many elements William Shakespeare presents in his great works. While completing a careful analysis of Shakespeare’s, The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, recent significant studies range from coinage and counterfeit sovereigns to the use of language by the characters in the play. Jesse M. Lander, discusses in an article, the relationship between the monarch and economic value of the Elizabethan period; “The language of coin and coinage…is animated by the peculiar and shifting nexus of sovereign power and economic value found in a coin” (Lander 137-38). Most interestingly, the manipulation and the use of prose and verse amongst the characters help to define their immediate roles. Researchers have accomplished many studies in order to explore these avenues of language.

Surprisingly, readers will find that Shakespeare was able to see the differences in dialect according to a person’s class. This study, explored by many critics, is fascinating to know that today, in 2008; we continue to hold many of the characteristics that Shakespeare’s characters displayed. It is common that each of us may know a Falstaff, Hotspur, and a Hal. According to linguistic studies, we typically tend to represent ourselves differently through our dialect. For instance, if we were going on a job interview, we may familiarize ourselves with the proper jargon, or speak to impress our potential employers. In another instance, we may be lounging with a group of friends, during this time we may feel relaxed to speak in a more casual dialect, using simple prose. During Shakespeare’s time, these same traits must have been evident, because he wrote characters with these same dialect differences. Shakespeare displayed these language nonconformities by writing some character lines using pose, verse, or both.

Shakespeare differentiated the use of verse and prose by whether the character is a part of the courts or tavern life, a commoner. Leeds Barroll states in his critical essays, “Shakespeare Studies” and Ronald Macdonald  in his article, “Uneasy Lies: Language and History in Shakespeare’s Lancastrian Tetralogy,” their focus on the use of language in a way in which Shakespeare had written his character’s lines for The First Part of Henry the Fourth. Barroll and Macdonald, and others, point out to the reader how to tell the difference between verse and prose, and what the purpose for Shakespeare’s changes. The differences begin with Falstaff’s lines and speeches, they are in prose; he is the plays comic relief, often mimicking court life. On the other end, Hotspur speaks mainly in verse. Hotspur is said to have the “strongest and best speech in the play, which is done in verse” (Barroll 161). Between the two styles, Hal’s language changes as a chameleon does in order to adapt to its surroundings. In this way, while Hal is in the company of tavern commoners, including Falstaff, he speaks in prose; however, during his visits with members of the courts, he speaks with determined words in verse. “Hal easily moves from one world to the other…[b]etween the two worlds lies a huge and fundamental opposition, but each is autonomous within itself” (Barroll 676). Most of us, today, can adapt easily to our surroundings; therefore, it is probably more common to find Hals in our world. Like Hal, we are conscious of our company and we are aware of how to capture their attention and respect. If we are incapable of these switches, we may find ourselves with the characteristics of a burlesque Falstaff or a tenacious Hotspur.

“Falstaff is Shakespeare’s most brilliant speaker of comic prose” (Riemer 64). Shakespeare has made Falstaff into the play’s clown, he often attempts to be a nobleman in order to justify his relationship with Hal, but these actions simply remind him of his present status. Toward the end of Act 2.4 Falstaff and Hal, perform a role-playing scene before Hal visits with his father. During their role-playing, Falstaff acts as the King, he requests that Hal keep Falstaff as his loyal friend, “A goodly portly man, i’faith, and a corpulent; of a cheerful look, a pleasing eye, and a most notable carriage…I see virtue in his looks…there is virtue in the Falstaff. Him keep with the rest banish” (1 Henry IV, II.iv. 417-425). When they reverse roles, Hal speaks in verse, he, without hesitation, degrades Falstaff, reminding him that as a person of his stature, he can easily erase Falstaff from his life. “There is a devil haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man; a tun of man is thy companion…Wherein crafty but in villainy?…Wherein worthy but in nothing?...That villainous abominable misleader of youth, Falstaff, that old white-bearded Satan” (1 Henry IV, II.iv. 442-43, 452-53, 457-458). Falstaff realizes that “he” represents the whole world that Hal must “banish” in order to obtain his place on the royal throne. Because Falstaff is acting a royal part, he begins his line in verse, only to end in desperation and prose, begging Hal to keep him in his circle. “Falstaff derides the chivalric ideal, the forms of noble behavior, the law itself; he robs them, flouts their ideals, and corrupts their prince. And, because he is in such constant opposition to their world, it is only fitting that he should never really speak its language…Falstaff speaks prose because of what he represents as well as what he is” (Riemer 65-66).

As Falstaff’s character matches his language, Hotspur’s does as well. His language is clear, direct and forceful as is his demeanor. “His verse is so hard, colloquial, and simple that he really has no need for prose” (Barroll 161). Unlike Falstaff, Hotspur belongs to the world of chivalry; therefore, he must speak more profound, leaving behind the casual use of prose. Although, Hotspur is known for his great use of verse, critics point out, in Act 2.3, that Hotspur reads a letter in prose, but once Lady Percy, his wife, enters the room, he quickly jumps back into vibrant lines of verse. Besides the letter, Hotspur only speaks prose during short lines when he jokes with his wife; you tend to find him speaking mainly in verse during his strong responses (Barroll 162-63).

Hal is using both prose and verse, depending on the company he is in, “speaking prose in the tavern and verse in the court with equal facility” (Riemer 70). Hal has educated himself in changing the ways to speak to fit the occasion:

[T]o be able to “drink with any tinker in his own language” (1 Henry IV, II.iv.19); to be able to   speak like Hotspur “[g]ive my roan horse a drench,” says he. And answers, “[s]ome fourteen,’ an hour after; ‘a trifle,” (1 Henry IV, II.iv.106-08); to speak like a king, or to speak like himself, “I know you all, and will a while uphold/ The unyok’d humor of your idleness,/ Yet herein will I imitate the sun” (1 Henry IV, I.ii.195-97). (Macdonald 375-76)

The evident changes in Hal’s language is not the education a book can teach you, but it is the life experience you receive when you surround yourself in the company of different classes. Hal has the openness of allowing himself to obtain the mannerisms of his surroundings. Hal is aware that although his blood runs with royal courtship, it is only honorable to see life through the eyes of a commoner; after all, he would be ruling them so it is only natural to want their approval. At the same time, Hal realizes that he must be found worthy of the courts, in order to receive chivalry. This double-sided trait benefits him in several ways, ultimately leading him to a successful throne.

It is quite evident, that by not being able to perform these shifts in society, a person will only lead a life of narrow-mindedness. Hotspur’s character shows this defeat. Hotspur is so lost in the aristocratic world that he is found mocking the King, his equals, and certainly the commoners. He clearly has taken his power for granted and often abuses his royalty.

[Hotspur] has a thoroughly naïve relation to the language he speaks…it is easy to
underestimate the extent to which he abandons himself to the aristocratic myths ofthe old order. Yet his gaze is retrospective, and it is in his casualness with language, and particularly in his unreflective relation to the institution of promising, that we can discover his allegiances more clearly. “By the Lord, our plot is a good plot as ever was laid, our friends true and constant; a good plot, good friends, and full of expectation, an excellent plot, very good friends…Is there not my father, my uncle, and myself? Lord Edmund Mortimer, my Lord of York, and Owen Glendower? is there not besides the Douglas? have I not all their letters to meet me in arms by ninth of the next month?” (1 Henry IV, II.iii. 15-19, 23-28). Critics advise readers to be suspicious of Hotspur’s way of upping the verbal ante here…you can’t make a thing so by saying it, nor a friend true by heaping him with honorific adjectives. (Macdonald 376-77)

These differences in the language use amongst characters play a highly important role in Part 1 of Henry the Fourth. As stated before, it is more than likely that each of us knows a Falstaff, a Hotspur, and a Hal, each of them holding uniqueness to them. Whether you live life on the edge, making a mockery of rules and regulations, or if you abuse your rank and power so badly, you end up losing respect from all of your peers, you should understand the consequences that come along with your actions. Shakespeare’s best advice to us all in 1 Henry IV, is to live cautiously between both worlds, learning to understand all walks of life.

Works Cited

Barroll, J Leeds, Susan Zimmerman, and John Drakakis. "REVIEWS - Shakespeare Studies,  
Vols 28 and 29." The Modern Language Review. 2004. 158-162.

---. "Shakespeare Studies." Renaissance Quarterly. 51.2 (1998): 676.

Macdonald, Ronald R. “Uneasy Lies: Language and History in Shakespeare’s Lancastrian 
Tetraology.” Henry the Fourth, Parts I and II: Critical Essays. Shakespearean criticism, vol.
5. Ed. David M. Bevington. New York: Garland Pub. 1986. 359-385.

Riemer, A. P. "'A World of Figures': Language and Character in Henry IV Part 1." Sydney
Studies in English. 6 (1980): 62-74.

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry The Fourth. The Necessary Shakespeare.
Ed. David Bevington. New York: Pearson. 2005. 373-411.