Kit A.

Nadado English 382 Falstaffs prowess with words truly makes him one of the most fascinating characters in Shakespeares plays. His ability to manipulate his position from the disadvantage to the advantage with words and perhaps sheer shamelessness is notable throughout the play. Falstaff is a deceiver with words, employing various strategies to fit his design and irreverently save his face. Indeed, Falstaff exhibits his expertise with words through deception, employing techniques such as name calling to sugarcoat vile acts with pleasant names, and twisting definitions of virtue to serve his purposes. Falstaffs deception employs sugarcoating dishonorable acts with honorable names. Falstaffs company may have led Prince Harry into committing dishonorable acts, sugarcoating these acts as honorable vocations. Such is thievery. Falstaff never calls his company of robbers thieves. Instead, he employs name calling, branding their group as Dianas foresters, gentlemen of the shade men of good government(25-27). These names sugarcoat the thieves and at the same time justify the crime, a good excuse for committing such a heinous act. Another example of Falstaffs sugarcoating technique is shown by his recasting of the word cowardice. Prince Harry, confronting Falstaffs lies regarding the recent ambush calls Falstaff a sanguine coward and a bed presser (2.4.239-240). Falstaff answers, Should I turn upon the true prince? I am as valiant as Hercules, but beware instinct (2.4.266-268). Falstaff cleverly sugarcoats cowardice, replacing the dishonorable word with instinct, a term far from dishonor. He also calls himself a Hercules, acquiring a brave depiction of his rather cowardly act. Such technique of name calling to sugarcoat a dishonorable act is beguiling. Falstaff further deceives by twisting definitions of virtue to suit his purposes. In an invitation to perform another robbery, Prince Harry blatantly refuses, Who, I rob? I a thief? Not I, by my faith (1.2.135). Falstaff, in response to Prince Harrys refusal answers, Theres neither honesty, manhood, if thou darest not stand for ten shillings (1.2.136-138). Falstaff assaults and at the same time twists the definition of honesty and manhood to appeal to Prince Harry. Thievery, through Falstaffs tongue becomes an honorable and manly act. Such technique is deceptive and manipulative. Another example of Falstaffs technique of twisting virtue is his portrayal of his lifestyle. Indeed a drunk and full of vice, Falstaff otherwise brands himself as virtuous and a gentleman despite of his dishonorable escapades. Almost proudly, he states, virtuous enough: swore little, diced not seven times- a week, went to a bawdy house not above once in a quarter of an hour (3.3.15-17). His list of antics goes on, pausing here and there to point out that there is no evil in his person but a virtuous gentleman. Virtues definition here is severely violated to mask and justify his iniquity. Truly, Falstaffs use of words depicts not only his manipulative and deceptive quality but also his selfish nature. His interest only lies in self-preservation. Falstaffs actions are but evidences that he is willing to perform anything to save face and justify his dross acts, even manipulate words. Nevertheless, the reader cannot help but be fascinated with such a crude character and his uncanny skill of the language.