This text is a comment on Hotspur’s death in 1 Henry IV and its significance for the entire Lancasterian tetralogy. It peculiar because, having been killed by Prince Hal, he is once again killed (as it were) by Falstaff, and his death is thus linked with both figures in the play.
To begin with, let me note what on my interpretation all three figures (Prince Hal, Falstaff, and Hotspur) at least partly represent.
Firstly, Hotspur very much denotes chivalric virtues. Firstly, King Henry wishes that his loose son Hal should be like Hotspur (81 ff.), whom he calls “the Theame of Honors tongue” (84), and “sweet Fortunes Minion, and her Pride” (86). (See also 1914 ff.) Secondly, Prince Hal himself gives testimony of his reputation calling him “This gallant Hotspur, this all-praysed Knight,” (1960) notes that “euery Honor sitting on his Helme,” (1962) and speaks of his “glorious Deedes” (1966 and 1968).
Secondly, Falstaff, of course, together with his companions, is linked with loose behaviour of every kind including thievery, whoring, drinking, and gluttony, and this coheres well with the fact that scholars have observed that he owes something to the Vice from the Morality Plays. [1]
Thirdly, given his soliloquy toward the beginning of the play with the incipit “I know you all …” (296 ff.), it must be assumed that Prince Hal has all along been standing for the contrary of what Falstaff represents; in other words, his denunciations of Falstaff, while having been inseparable from jest and merry-making in the beginning, have always incorporated a serious core, which eventually comes to the fore at the end of 2 Henry IV when Hal, now crowned King Henry V, banishes Falstaff and his fellows.
Moving on to Hotspur’s death, it is clear that Prince Hal kills Hotspur in a battle one against the other, right after he has saved the King his father from being killed by Douglas (2984 ff.). Moreover, Hotspur is killed by Hal, right after Falstaff himself has been “killed” by Douglas, though Falstaff, of course, is “resurrected” in a moment’s time, as he was only counterfeiting. In fact, Hal’s farewell to Falstaff ensues directly after his final words to Hotspur, and we learn that Falstaff and Hotspur must be laying close by, as, promising to return, Hal says to Falstaff “Till then, in blood, by Noble Percie lye” (3075).
In other words, I suggest that Shakespeare’s setting these “deaths” (one real, the other apparent) one next to the other may be reinforcing a presumed association of Hotspur and Falstaff, who have been argued to be linked also in terms of their speech behaviour. [2]
Now, conspicously, having just risen from the dead (as it were) after Hal left, Falstaff, being afraid that Hotspur “should counterfeit too, and rise” (3088) says:
therefore Ile make him sure:/ yea, and Ile sweare I kill’d him. Why may not hee rise as/ well as I: Nothing confutes me but eyes, and no-bodie/ sees me. Therefore sirra, with a new wound in your thigh/ come you along me. (3089-3093)
Having wounded Hotspur’s dead body, Falstaff even claims to have killed Hotspur himself (3104 ff.), and Prince Hal does him the favour to cover up his lie, saying:
“For my part, if a lye may do thee grace,/ Ile gil’d it with the happiest tearmes I haue.” (1 H IV, 3122-3123)
Thus, notwithstanding that things are reported correctly by Morton, messenger to Northumberland, in 2 Henry IV (see 167-171), the idea that Falstaff killed Hotspur has been put out there.
In this context, note also that “thigh wounds” do have a special literary significance in epic poetry, and given that Shakespeare’s “Henriad” has been argued to be written at least partially with the Aeneid in mind, it may be not too far fetched to take a glance to Virgil’s epos. [3] There, the death of at least two figures unambiguously involves thigh wounds [4], and one of them is Turnus who has already been likened to Hotspur by M. Mueller in other respects. [5]
Thus, as D. Felton argues that the thigh wound symbolises loss of fertility or even impotence in Classical epic poetry, I suggest that, given Hotspur’s fiery character, Shakespeare links dead, thigh wounded Hotspur with vigour extinguished. Recall as part of his last words the phrase, “Oh Harry, thou hast rob’d me of my youth” (3042). [6] Again, that with Hotspur is also the “fire” (2 H IV, 173) extinguished is said by Morton, the messenger to Northumberland, in 2 Henry IV.
Thus, on this interpretation, if Falstaff is linked with the death of Hotspur, then the pretention is that Hotspur-like vigour has been killed by Falstaffian merry-making, even though it has been really killed by Hal-like abstinent virtue.
Also, by the way in which the characters are supposedly linked it is implied that Hotspur’s vigour is linked with Falstaff’s merry-making. With Hotspur being dead, consider Falstaff’s deterioration in 2 Henry IV, where he is closely linked with malady, old age, and sinfulness.
More generally speaking, in contrast with the merry business in 1 Henry IV, this coheres with the more somber mood in 2 Henry IV, which is fraught with the theme of sickness, and loss of vigour aptly glosses much of its going ons. For example, notice Hal’s melancholy, including his desire after “small Beere” (2 H IV, 797), which contends with his grief for his suffering father. Also consider how Falstaff indulges in nostalgia together with Shallow.
In conclusion, I suggest that Falstaff and Hotspur are linked, and that, for better or worse, Prince Hal’s killing of Hotspur in 1 Henry IV is the first step of Hal’s reformation, which is complete only in Henry V, and that the second is his rejection of Falstaff. Finally, as both characters are symbolically linked, I think that Hotspur’s death in 1 Henry IV at least partly accounts for Falstaff’s adapted characterisation in 2 Henry IV.
As an afterthought [added 31/08/2025], recall that in Taming of the Shrew Shakespeare parodies chivalry when he has Sly, the drunkard, declare to the Hostess, when he is thrown out of the tavern:
Y’are a baggage, the Slies are no/ Rogues. Looke in the Chronicles, we came/ in with Richard Conqueror: therefore Pau-/cas pallabris, let the world slide: Sessa. (6-9)
Against this background, and not to mention Sir Toby Belch from Twelth Night, it comes as less as a surprise that Shakespeare should have also somehow linked Falstaff, the debaucher, with the heroic Hotspur in his Henriad.
_______________________________
[1] See B. Spivack, “Falstaff and the Psychomachia,” Shakespeare Quarterly 8, no. 4 (1957): 449-459.
[2] See S. A. Small, “Hotspur and Falstaff,” The Shakespeare Association Bulletin 16, no. 4 (1941): 243-248.
[3] A. Woodmansee, The influence of Vergil’s Aeneid on Shakespeare’s Henriad, Diss. (Stanislaus: California State University, 2014).
[4] D. Felton, “Thigh wounds in Homer and Vergil: Cultural reality and literary metaphor,” Resemblance and Reality in Greek Thought, edited by A. Park (London: Routledge, 2016), 255-274.
[5] M. Mueller, “Turnus and Hotspur: The Political Adversary in the ‘Aeneid’ and ‘Henry IV,’” Phoenix 23, no. 3 (1969): 278–90.
[6] Curiously, Hotspur is even linked with childishness proper, as he is called “Mars, in swathing Clothes, This Infant Warrior” (1932-1933), and, though more ambiguously, he is also called “Child of Honor and Renowne” (1959), and “Northerne Youth” (1965).
First published on May 18 2025 on Ko-fi