Henry IV Part 1 Language and Communication Quotes

This passage reminds us of the important relationship between power, speech, and rebellion. Hotspur is furious when the king asserts his authority by refusing to ransom Mortimer from the Welsh, by demanding Percy's war prisoners and, more importantly, by forbidding Hotspur to "speak of Mortimer." Hotspur's refusal to let the king silence his "tongue" speaks volumes about his willfulness and his threat to scream "Mortimer!" in the king's ear as he "lies asleep" anticipates the way Hotspur will lead the rebellion against the king. This establishes an important concept that we should pay attention to in the play: those who control language have all the power.

As the reigning heavyweight champ of smack talk, Falstaff dazzles us with his elaborate puns and clever word play. Here, Falstaff insists that he and his criminal friends be called "squires of the night's body" (a rather fun way of referring to thieves who work at night, don't you think?). Though Falstaff has a tendency to lie and manipulate, here it's pretty clear he doesn't expect anyone to take him seriously – he knows there's nothing noble or chivalric about stealing "by the moon and the seven stars."

Falstaff insists that he and his thieving pals called "gentlemen of the shade, minions of the moon" as a way to mock his status as a disgraced knight. But, at the same time Falstaff recognizes his own shortcomings, he also manages to thumb his nose at authority. While Falstaff isn't planning on rising up against the king any time soon, we can see how his masterful manipulation of language marks him as a very rebellious spirit. It's also the thing that seems to attract Prince Hal to his company (not such a good thing for the kingdom if Hal's supposed to be gearing up to take over as king). Does this make Falstaff just as dangerous as, say, Hotspur?

In a previous passage we saw how Hotspur's rebellious "tongue" is an important marker of his rebellious attitude. Here, Northumberland means to insult Hotspur as he scolds him for talking too much, like a "woman" in a foul "mood." Mouthiness, as it were, is frequently associated with effeminacy and unruliness in Shakespeare's plays. (Think of the way Petruchio sets out to "tame" Katherine's rebellious tongue in The Taming of the Shrew.) As Henry IV Part 1 progresses, we're led to believe that Hotspur's "womanish" lack of control and "impatient" tongue are markers of his unfitness to govern.

Here, Hotspur claims that women are loose-tongued and can't keep secrets, which is why he won't share vital information about the rebel uprising with his wife, Kate. The truth is, however, that Hotspur's the one with the big mouth. In the previous passage, we saw Hotspur's father, Northumberland, chide his son for not knowing when to pipe down.

This passage is important insofar as it reveals Hal's capacity for language acquisition. When he brags to his pal that he can "drink with any tinker in his own language," we're reminded that Hal really can speak to anyone. In fact, Hal is the only character in the play that slips in and out of the "low" language spoken by the commoners and Falstaff and the "high" language spoken by nobles at court and on the battlefield. Ever notice the way Hal speaks prose (how we talk everyday) when he's with his Eastcheap pals and poetry when he's alone and with the other nobles? Hal's mastery of language may suggest that he will be a good ruler because he understands and can relate to all the different kinds of people that make up England – tinkers, barmaids, noblemen, and so on. Hotspur, on the other hand, is frequently taken to task for his inability to control language. Even Hotspur's uncle Worcester notes his tendency to alienate his colleagues or, "loseth men's hearts" with his crass and insulting language (3.1).

Man, Hotspur is totally out of control. Here, he insults the Welsh Glendower, who has pointed out that he (Glendower) can speak and sing both English and Welsh, unlike Hotspur, who only speaks English. Hotspur's response? He insults Glendower, singers ("metre ballad-mongers"), and "mincing" poetry in one fell swoop. While theater-goers might find themselves snickering behind their hands (we're sure Shakespeare had some fun writing these nasty lines), it also seems pretty clear that Hotspur's aversion to the art of language (Shakespeare's profession) is a major character flaw.

Here, Hotspur equates Lady Mortimer's singing with the "devil," who, according to Hotspur, also speaks and "understands" Welsh. He then goes on to insult the Irish when he says he'd rather hear his dog ("brach") "howl in Irish." What's going on here? Why all the bashing?

Part of it has to do with England's position as a colonial power and Elizabethan England's tendency to view anything non-English as completely foreign and "other." Even though Wales had been incorporated into England in the 1530s, it was still viewed as alien and strange, which is partly responsible for the play's representation of Welsh characters (Glendower, Lady Mortimer, and the Welshwomen who are reported to have castrated 1,000 English soldiers in Act one, scene one.) We talk more about this in "Symbols, Imagery, Allegory" and "Gender."

Also, even though the play doesn't dramatize any conflict between England and Ireland, at the time Shakespeare wrote Henry IV Part 1 (c. 1597), the Earl of Tyrone's Irish rebellion (1595) was fresh in the minds of the audience, who surely would have recognized parallels between King Henry's problems with the Welsh (and the English Percy family) and Queen Elizabeth's problem with the Irish rebellion. Hence, Hotspur's obnoxious crack about Welsh and Irish languages in this part of the play.

We also want to point out that Hotspur's aversion to any language that's not English doesn't seem to bode well for a guy who wants to govern Britain.

So far, we've said a lot about why Hotspur's relationship to language seems to make him unfit to govern. Here, we want to take a slightly different position. In this passage, Hotspur admits that it's hard for him to pay the courageous Douglas a compliment because he believes that "flattery" is disingenuous. While the play as a whole seems to value characters for their linguistic chops and rhetorical skill, it also seems to acknowledge Hotspur's point. Flattery can be incredibly deceptive and manipulative, and Hotspur's defiance of the "the tongues of soothers" is sort of admirable, don't you think?

In the previous passage, we argued that Hotspur's refusal to take part in empty "flattery" seemed kind of admirable. Here, we want to show you some evidence that Hotspur's aversion to "flattery" and "praise" may be misguided. When Vernon reports Prince Hal's challenge to Hotspur, he admires Hal's "princely tongue" and Hal's modest way of complimenting Hotspur. Hotspur, of course, accuses Vernon of having a man crush (being "enamoured") and admits he (Hotspur) hasn't got the "gift of tongue." Could it be that the play values Hal's ability to challenge Hotspur to man-to-man combat in a courteous or flattering way? We can't decide. What do you think?

When Hal defeats Hotspur in battle and asserts himself as rightful heir to the throne, it's not surprising that Prince Hal literally gets the last word. Here, we're interested in the way Hal completes young Percy's final sentence after Hotspur dies. If we recall Hotspur's vehement insistence on the importance and power of language in matters of rebellion in Act 1, his inability to complete his very last phrase on earth becomes all the more dramatic. And, as cliché as it may sound, the play suggests that, in the end, death is the ultimate silencer.