“Ecce signum!”—behold the proof!—Falstaff proclaims in Act 2 of 1 Henry IV, presenting his “sword hacked like a handsaw” as incontrovertible evidence of the veracity of his account of the Gadshill robbery (2.4.162).1¹ His subsequent claim to have been ambushed by dozens of well-armed men explains the dents in his weapon as effects of a series of events in the past. The meaning of the damaged sword, in his account, is coextensive with the historical narrative that the damage makes obvious. But, as we all know, Falstaff is lying; he actually created these material traces in order to stage the narrative that purportedly explains them. Falstaff’s forgery never risks being anything more than a punchline for Hal because we have seen the Gadshill robbery for ourselves. But how would we read Falstaff’s hacked sword if we did not have privileged access to these events? The answer, as Hal suggests, lies in the way we read Falstaff himself: “These lies are like their father that begets them” (l. 218).

中文翻译：

---

演说史和另类爵士

福尔斯塔夫在《亨利四世》第1号法案第2条中宣称“ Ecce signum ！”，这证明了他对加兹希尔抢劫案真实性的无可辩驳的证据（2.4.162）.1 ^1个 他后来声称被数十名装备精良的人伏击，这解释了他武器中的凹痕是过去一系列事件的影响。用他的话说，损坏的剑的含义与损坏显而易见的历史叙述同感。但是，众所周知，福斯塔夫在撒谎。他实际上创造了这些材料痕迹，以便进行据称可以解释它们的叙述。弗斯塔夫（Falstaff）的伪造绝不会冒给哈尔（Hal）一口气，因为我们亲眼目睹了盖兹希尔（Gadshill）的抢劫案。但是，如果我们没有特权来访问这些事件，我们将如何看待福斯塔夫的被砍伐的剑？正如哈尔（Hal）所建议的那样，答案在于我们阅读福斯塔夫本人的方式：“这些谎言就像是他们的父亲生下了他们”（第218页）。