My Sweet Wag

Shakespeare’s interpretation of the word wag in his play Henry IV Part 1 can be interpreted multiple ways. The word wag only appears five times in the play and is only spoken by Falstaff. I believe through this portrayal Shakespeare is trying to send the message that wag is not a word used by those in royal standings; which is why Falstaff who is the lowest of the low seems to make it a part of his everyday vocabulary. The word first appears in the novel as, “sweet wag” (1.2.17). In the notes of the Folger Shakespeare Library edition of the play it is defined to mean “dear fellow.” It is interesting that three out of the five times this word appear it is accompanied by the word sweet in front of it. On the other two occasions Falstaff mixes it up by placing the term “mad” in front. By these findings it can be interpreted that the word “wag” alone means fellow and whatever word placed in front of it can be used to specify how the speaker feels toward the person they are talking to. It can also be noted that the only time Falstaff uses the word wag is when he addresses the Prince of Wales. It can be assumed by this action that Falstaff holds a certain level of respect towards Prince Hal, whether it is because of their close friendship or his royal status is unknown, but he does not address anyone else in such a manner. In fact when he usually addresses people he is quite rude in tone. Upon further investigation the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has a definition of the word wag that is almost identical to that of the Folger Shakespeare Library. The OED defines wag as, “A mischievous boy (often as a mother’s term of endearment to a baby boy); in wider application, a youth, young man, a ‘fellow’, ‘chap’.” In the OED’s example sentences it even has an excerpt from the play reading, “But, I prithee, sweet wag, shall there be gallows standing in England when 
thou art king,” (1.2.61-63). This definition leads one to question just how dominant a role the word “mischievous” plays in defining wag. It would come as no surprise if Shakespeare meant for it to play a major role seeing as Prince Hal does not have the highest moral standards in the beginning. If he is hanging out with thieves such as Falstaff and Gadshill then why wouldn’t one question his character and place him under the stereotype of a troubled young fellow? This opens up a new interpretation for the word wag in the play that might otherwise have been overlooked. Falstaff referencing Prince Hal as a wag does he see him as someone who is no better than himself, but just happened to be fortunate enough to be born into royalty? Based off the OED’s definition it can be insinuated that Falstaff is making a slight dig at his friend when he addresses in this manner. Regardless of which definition Shakespeare was trying to utilize it can be interpreted that this word is not a term of endearment and was used by Falstaff in to tease the Prince of Wales.