f t T H E C H A R A C T E R I

SIR JOH N FALSTAFF,

A S O R IGINAL L " EX H IB ITE D B "

S H A K E S P EA R E

IN TH E

TWO PARTS O F KING HENR" IV.

B "

J AMES ORC HARD HALLIWELLfESQ,

H ON. ETC . ETC . ETC .

In spi te of facti on th i s w ou ld fav ou r get ‘ ” B u t F alstafi stan ds i n im i table y et .

LONDON LLI M P N " L NE WI A IC KERI G, C HANC ER A .

1841 .

" J O H N P A NE C O L L I E R , E S Q . ,

T H I S L I T T L E V O L " ME

I S NS C R B E D I I ,

A S A S L I G H T T E S T I M O N "

R E P E C T A ND E T E E M S S .

ADVERTI EME T S N .

THE object of the following pages is to en deavour to place in a clearer light a question which has been frequently discussed, but still

o left in c nsiderable obscurity. In the earlier ages of Shakespearian criti

ism c , it appears to have been taken for granted that the character of Falstaff was intended to represent a person equally historical with the o ther dr a ma ti s per sona? and the absurd no tion that its proto type was Sir Jo hn Fastolf appears to be hardly yet exploded . In the present tract I have endeavoured to establish what appears to me an important fact con t d nec e with this subject,and I have fortunately been enabled to illustrate it with several docu ments and passages from rare books, which have escaped the researches of former critics . I have taken the opportunity of publishing a few notes relating to Shakespeare, but not immediately connected with the subject of this essay .

35 f - Lo o , Al red place, nd n,

Eve o l 1841 . f St. Mi chae ,

A N E S S A "

ON THE

L F C HARAC TER OF FA STA F.

n TH E two parts of Henry IV . are uques ’ tio nably the most original of Shakespeare s

m o historical dra as ; or, in o ther words, to av id

ambiguity, he was not so deeply indebted in those two plays to the labours of previous

z dramatists . We recogni e in them the forms o nly of the old compositions ; and they have

undergone so complete a transformation, in

passing through his hands, that little else than

the title and general character can be traced . These still remain in an old play entitled “ The f ” Famous Victories o King Henry the Fifth, which has been satisfactorily proved to have

been written before the year 1 5 88. The connexion which exists between a character in 8 T r HE CHARACTER o FALSTAFF .

s ear s to p ei ever famous fat knight, is a subject whiCh I wish to draw the attentio n o f critical readers of our great dramatist, in the following pages . I propose to discuss, and I hope I shall be able satisfactorily to set at rest, a question which has arisen, gro unded hitherto o n a tradition of no earlier date than the com " m nt m e nce e of the eighteenth century, whe ther Shakespeare in the first instance b o rrowed the name as well as amplified the character of

- the above mentio ned n obleman, who IS so highly distinguished in the history of the re formed religion . This question does no t in any way affect

o o the fame f Shakespeare . It may be go d

o o - o i o I allude, f c urse, to the well kn wn tradit n

L f of handed down to us by Rowe, in his i e Shake speare It may n ot be improper to observe that this part of Falstaff is said to have been wr itten ori gin ally under the name of Oldcastle some of that f i e amily being then remain ng,the Queen was pleas d to command him to alter it upon which he made ” of F ff use alsta . THE C HARACTER o r FALSTAFF . 9

policy to premise this, for I observe with regret that there are many readers of our immortal

’ poet s works, who, witho ut a knowledge of the subject, despise the literature and criticism which have set the emanatio ns o f his genius in their true historical light, and who are als o greatly averse to the idea of accusing Shake speare of being indebted to previo us writers for any portion of the material on which he

am n o w has founded his dramas . I alluding to w oM o c the , and not to those who , with a competent kn owledge o f contemporary litera

ture,have made it a matter of study . Amo ng e the num rous readers of Shakespeare, with

whom I have had the fortune to co nverse, I have never yet found one who did n ot consider

i n o him, the words of an auth r who ought to “ have kno wn better, as the great poet whom n ature framed to disregard the wretched

o m dels that were set before him, and to create a drama fro m his o wn native and o riginal ” stores . The real fact is, that n o dramatist ever made a freer use o f those wretched ” o m dels than Shakespeare . It may safely be 10 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . said that not a single plot of any of his dramas

u is entirely his own . It is tr e that the sources o f some of his plays have not yet been dis

“ covered, but they are those that we kn o w he would not have invented, leaving the capability

an o f doing so out of the question . There c , at any rate, be no doubt that all the historical were on e was

- ‘ u - ‘ e mpldyCd 1i tfiem fi remodel and repéfiijfiéfijm m ofi é fiih the m s f a the na eflg the M a fi most - p opular; incidm etwo parts of Henry

so IV. , as I have observed above, he has com l l p ete y repaired the old model, that they may almost be considered in the light of o riginal dramas . I can scarcely imagi ne a more interesting subject for literary enquiry than the tracing out the originals of these plays, and the ex amination of the particular loci where the mas ter hand of Shakespeare has commenced his o wn labours ; yet it is a study so inadequately encouraged, and so little valued, that few have THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . 1 1

the courage to enlist in its cause . The public appear to co nsider it an obstacle, rather than otherwise, to the free reading of his works, and w onder more especially what possible connexion there can be between literary history and roman tic dramas . It was but recently that one of our most learned and acute critics in this way was pro nounced a perfect barbarian a savage without a poetical soul, because he fixed by historic wand the scene of Prospero’ s enchant ments . The master stroke of the photogenic art was thought u nfavourable to the interests “ of true poetry, and a local habitation and a name incompatible with the nature of the “ theme . Surely,in common fairness,the still ’ v d ex Bermoothes ought to be expunged, and all the earthly concomitants deposited, like Lampedusa, in ethereal uncertainty .

But do we,as Mr. Hunter asks,by researches such as these, lose any particle of the admira tion in which we hold Shakespeare ? 5 If the e positiv be maintained, there is at least a satis faction i n knowing what is the real fact ; and f there is a love o truth, as well as a love of 12 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

o Shakespeare, and a h mage due to b o th . A careful historian would pause, n o matter ho w strong the evidence was, before he would

s o attribute to any geniu , h wever vast, the mighty revoluti o ns in p o etry o r science which

ak are vulgarly ascribed to Sh espeare . The

r m o labours of successive, o re rarely, co m

in to b ed minds, al o ne are able accomplish

Po such things . When pe said

’ Nature and Nature s laws lay hid in night

’ God L o all said , et Newt n be, and was light he expressed himself very el o quently ; and the opinion implied in the couplet has beco me a

o o c p pular dogma . But Newt n owed as mu h to Kepler as Shakespeare did to Marlowe ; and Coleridge could not have been far wrong when he extended the weight of those obligatio ns even beyond the boundary usually adopted by professed critics . In plain words, Shakespeare — did not invent he perfected a drama already ennobled by the labours of others ; and the history o f that drama forms a very curio us and important epoch in our vernacular literature . THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . 13

to P Plays were ascribed lautus, if we may believe Aulus Gellius,which he only retouched and p olished . They were, to use his o wn

’

tr actatoe et ex olz tce. expressi on, r e p It was so also with Shakespeare but few now would be guilty of ascribing that drum and trumpet

P of thing, called the First art Henry to his pen, written do ubtlessly befo re he entered the arena of dramatic competition , th ough it may have been afterwards slightly revised by him . I can see little evidence or reason for in cluding it in his works, but as it is often inserted as a genuine play, I will take it as a document

o in the histo ry of his hist rical dramas, rather than consider it to ny necessary connexion w ith them, Shakespeare with the f character h exhibited in that play,

ab ol o n his . W o is an s genius h , indeed, can reaso nably accuse him of intro ducing the same character in Henry VI whose death he had described in Henry V . in a manner so remarkable ? There is not, in fact, any ground for believing that the charac 14 T o r A HE CHARACTER F LSTAFF .

' ters of Fastofl and F a lslaflhave any connexion

o whatever with each ther . I much doubt whether Shakespeare even had the fo rmer in his memory, when he changed the name, as I shall afterwards show,of Oldcastle to Falstaff; and I think it extremely probable that the lat ter name might have been inserted merely for the purpose of marking one of the prmmpal traits in his character. Yet we find historians and j o urnalists con tl stan y giving countenance to this vulgar error, and Fastolf is mentioned as the prototype of Falstaff with as much positiveness as though he . were an actual original of a genuine historical

. z on character. Mr Belt , in his recent work the Order of the Garter, and a reviewer o of that book in a literary journal of high pretensions, have fallen into the same error. The point is f of importance, because it af ects a good deal of

’ o ur reasoning on the sources of Shakespeare s most celebrated historical plays ; and we are surprised to find so many writers of reputatio n giving their authority to the common mistake . o r FA TA 1 THE CHARACTER L S TF . 5

‘ This leads us to old Fullerflwho was one of the earliest delinquents . In speaking of Sir l John Fasto f, he says

, To avouch him by many arguments valiant a is . to maintain that the sun is bright, though since the stage hath been overbold with his

' thr som memory, making him a a cal paj, and emblem of mock valour.

True it is, Sir John Oldcastle did first bear the brunt of the one, being made the make sport in all plays for a coward . It is easily known out of what purse this black peny came ; the Papists railing on him for a heretick, and therefore he must also be a coward, though indeed he was a man of arms, every inch of him, and as valiant as any in his age . Now as I am glad that Sir John Oldcastle is put out,so I am sorry that Sir John Fastolfe is put in,to relieve his memory in this base ser

“ ” o i of E E 1811 v ol . W rth es ngland, dit . , . p ' 1 1 -2 Fu ller di ed 1 1 d 3 . in 66 ,an this work was pub li shed for o f i the first time s on a terwards . Th s enables us to fix a limit to the date of the passage o about to be qu ted . 16 TH E CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

f r o v ice, to be the anvil o every dull wit t strike

r o u pon . No is our c median excusable by some alteratio n of his name, writing him Sir

John Falstafe, and making him the property of

for to pleasure King Henry the Fifth abuse , seeing the vicinity of sounds intrench on the — mem ory of that worthy knight and few do heed the inco nsiderable difference in spelling ” of their name .

This extract fro m Fuller, a very credible f writer, will o itself go a considerable way towards establishing the truth of Rowe’ s tra dition ; but I have other and m ore important documents to intro duce to the n o tice of my

readers, by means of which I ho pe to be ena bled to prove

I . That the stage was in the p o ssession of a rude o utline of Falstaff before Shakespeare

V. wrote either part of Henry I ,u nder the name

of Sir John Oldcastle .

2 . That the name of Oldcastle was retained

’ for at H IV. , ime in Shakespeare s enry " "but a s f ch nged to Fal taf before the play was printed . ” ’

3 . Trai Hi o f t, all probability, some the

18 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

The Legend and Defence of the Noble ” Knight and Martyr, Sir John Oldcastel, never published, but preserved with his other manu " scripts i n the Bodleian Library, and which undo ubtedly is a most valuable independent

’ testimony in favour of the truth of Rowe s tradition

’ e i end i r H r To my nobl fi S en y e B ou r chi er .

B ourchier ou Sir Harrie ,y are descended of

Noble Au ncestrie, and in the dutie of a go o d man loue to heare and see faire reputation pre

an o o serued from slander d blivio n . Wheref re

of O l v to you I dedicate this editio n c e e, where Sir Jhon Oldcastell apeeres to haue binne a man of valour and vertue, and onely l ost in

’ “ J 34 . S C atalo s MS . ames, ee Bernard s g u ” m Man u scr i toru m An li aa et H an Libroru p g iberni ,

1 . 1 . 263 . fol. o . 697 , for Ox n , par p ~ I am indebted my knowledge of this very important document to

Dr . s o o the R ev . Blis , wh se liberality in c mmuni

of cating the results his extensive reading, when he

of o can aid the researches thers, has benefited so

t o ful many . I beg leave return my grate and respectful acknowledgments . TH o r E CHARACTER FALSTAFF . 19 his owh e times because he would not bowe v nd r Pa is ri e the foule superstition of p t e, from whence in so great light of Gosple and learn ing that there is not yet a m o re vniversall d to sco rn eparture is me the greatest e of men .

But of this more in an o ther place, and in pre face will you please to heare me that which

o followes. A young Gentle Ladie f yo ur ac

o quaintance, having read the w rks of Shake speare, made me this question : How Sir ’ l if o r ast lf Jo hn Fa sta e, F o as it is written in the statute book of Maudlin Colledge in Oxford, where everye daye that so cietie were bound to make memorie of his soule, could be dead in Harrie the Fifts time and againe li ne in the time of Harrie the Sixt to be banisht for ? co wardiz e Whereto I made answeare that this was one o f those humours and mistakes for which Plato banisht all Po ets o ut of his

Jh n F l t ff commonwealth, that Sir o a s a e was in those times a noble valiant souldier as apeeres

’ by a book in the Herald s ofii ce dedicated vuto him by a herald whoe had binne with him if I well remember for the space of 25 yeeres in the French wars ; that he seemes allso to haue 20 TH o r E CHARACTER FALSTAFF .

' binne a man of learning because in a librarie of Oxford I finde a b o ok o f dedicating churches sent from him fo r a present vuto Bisho p Wainfiete and inscribed with his owne

’ sh w hand . That in Shakespeare s first e e o f

Harrie the Fifth, the perso n with which he

o o ff n o t F undert k to playe a bu one was alstaffe, f but Sir Jhon Oldcastle, and that of ence beinge wo rthily taken by pers onages descended from

his title, as peradventure by manie o thers allso who e ought to haue him in honourable me

morie, the poet was putt to make an ignorant

shift of Falsto h e abusing Sir John p e, a man not inferio r of virtue th ough n ot so famo us in i ti h p e e as the o ther, w o gaue witnesse vu to the trust of our refo rmatio n with a co nstant and

m u o resolute martyrdo , v t which he was pursued

by the Priests, Bishops, Mo ncks, and Friers of

o . tho se dayes . N ble sir, this is all my preface k G o d eepe you, and me, and all Christian peo ple fro m the bloo die designes of that cruell r eligion .

Yo urs in all observance,

RIC H : JAMES . TH o r E CHARACTER FALSTAFF . 2 1

to With respect this important letter, it will be observed that, by the first shewe of Harrie the Fifth, James unque stionably means ’ Shakespeare s Henry IV. He could not have

’ co nfused Shakespeare s play with The Famous

Victories, for in the latter drama the nomen of the character of Oldcastle had not been ” altered . The young gentle ladie had read

w ks o the or f Shakespeare, mos t probably the folio edition, and it is not at all likely she wo uld have alluded to a play which had then been entirely superseded . James and his lady friend also confuse the characters of Fastolf

ff o fo r u and Falsta , an ther example of the un t nate circumstance of the poet choosing a name so similar to that of the real hero . 1638 Dr. James died at the close of the year , and consequently the wo rk, fro m which I have quoted the letter given above, must have been

’ - comp o sed either in Shakespeare s life time, or

o t sh r ly after his death. On a careful com pariso n of the handwriting with o ther of his

‘ papers which are dated, I came to the con

’ elusion that 1625 was the year in which the 22 T o r HE CHARACTER FALSTAFF .

o manuscript was written . 3This, h wever, must not by any means be co nsidered conclusive ; but a few years either way are not of great con

sequen ce . I have n ot succeeded in discover ’ B our hi r ing the date of c e s death, the perso n to o wh m the dedicatory epistle is addressed, or I might perhaps have been enabled to com press the uncertain date within even narrower limits .

I have said that Dr . James, whom Wo o d “ ” l o o ca ls a hum o r us pers n, was intimate with

m o Ben Jo ns on . I derive y kn wledge of this fact fro m the papers o f the former in the B od l ian e Library, but I was disappointed in my expectati o n of finding n o tices of o ther drama

o i s o o f tists . Jo ns n frequently sp ken in high terms, and in one letter particularly he receives the greatest compliment fro m James that o ne scholar could pay to another Jam patres illi libenter spectarent ingenium foecundissimi

i J nsoni u t Thuanus B enjamin o , quem, de

do ns o anti uitat Petro Ronsar , ce e cum omni q e

t sensibus comparandum, si compta e plena ” poemata ejus et scenica spectemus . When r EAL r THE C HARACTER o STAE . 23

’ Jo nson s Staple of News was produced in

1625, the D o ctor addressed him poetically in the following lines, which are here given from the same collectio n of manuscripts

Ni ze T Mr . B n leonson on his S ta le e s o e j. J , p of

fir st presen ted .

Sir, if my robe and garbe were richly worth

d ari n f mmin f The ge o a statute co g orth ,

o r o f o r l w Were I man law a maker,

O m an o f o to b e v n der taker r C urte an , Fo r judgment wo uld I then c omme in and say The manye h ono urs o f your staple play d But being no thin g so , I are not haile

mi i fle f ht e oat s o o The g ign rance, who saile

d — S as e With win e and tide their ires, stori s tell,

’ ’ u H w n d Skelt n s In o r eighth arrie s time cr o o Nell, And the foule B o ss o f Whittingto n with greene

tr onkes r arel e scene Bayes, which on living are y ,

S o o fa b u t v o ne sprung , so ne ding , deser ing verse, Must take more lasting glo rie fro m the herse ;

d eer s When vulgars loose their sight,an sacred p e Of poetrie c onspire to make yo ur y eeres Of ] memorie eternal , then y o u shal be read

all u r h s i b ed By o race o f T e p ans, boar d and , 24 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

h o m untai ne i And ancke and b ure, vallie and o w ll R ejoice to knowe s omme pieces o f yo ur skill 1

"o M sai u e w rk i nled b ur r ich o q o es, y arte And curious industrie with ev er i e parte ‘ o o f A u n ci ents s And ch ice all the , o I write,

o for o a n ot fi hte Th ugh y ur s ke I dare say and g .

This brief digressi o n from our immediate argument is not without its use, because it

o was a satisfact rily shows that Dr. James c q uainted with o ne of the leading men in the f drama o the time, and of course renders his testimony on such a subject of more than ordi nary value . I will now proceed to give other, though less important, autho rities for the truth of my second pro po sitio n and joined with those

’ already placed before the reader s n o tice, they will be found, I think, sufficient to place that conclusion beyo nd a doubt My first extract is from a tract entitled

The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinarie, or ”

Powles 4 . 6 4 . the Walkes in , to Lond . 1 0 The

’ o nly known copy of this work is in Malone s collection in the Bodleian Library, but it will shortly be reprinted by the Percy Society, with

26 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . let this humor haue scope enough, I pray, and there is no doubt but his Tales will make vs laugh ere we be o ut of o u r Porridge . This merely shows that Sir John Oldcastle had been represented so mewhere or o ther as a f fat man, but I kn ow o no existing account of any such representatio n, unle ss the suppo si tion of the identity between Falstaff and Old castle be co rrect . My next extract is to the same effect, and is taken fro m a pamphlet eu “ titled The Wandering Jew telling Fo rtunes to

1 4 . Englishmen, 4 to . Lond . 6 0, p 38, which was certainly written before the year The character Glutton is speaking “ A Jew chaire, a chaire, sweet master , a — ’ chaire . All that I say is this, I me a fat

- man . It has been a West Indian voyage for

- me to come reeking hither . A kitchin stuffe wench might pick up a living by following me

i o vi Th s appears fr m internal e dence . The plan and the names of th e char acters in this work appear to have been borrowed from a well -know n tract called The Man in the Moone telling Strange Fo r ” - or En l o u e 4to . Lo . 1609. tunes, the g ish F rt ne t ller, nd r 2 THE CHARACTER o FALSTAFF . 7

for the fat which I loose in stradling. I doe w not live by the s weat of my bro s, but am

at almost dead with sweating. I e e much , but

can talke little . Sir John Oldcastle was my

’ ’ - —I great grandfather s father s uncle, come of a huge kindred And of you desire to learne whether my fo rtune be to die a yeere or two hence , o r to grow bigger, if I continue as I doe in feeding, for my victuals I cannot leave .

Say, say, merciful] Jew, what shall become of ” m e ?

t w Again I have reco urse o Fuller, ho, in " an o ther wo rk, repeats what he said before, but asserting m ore distinctly that the character o f Falstaff was substi tuted fo r that of Oldcastle Stage p oets have themselves been very

ld o ho with , and thers very merry at, the me f mory o Sir John Oldcastle, whom they have

” C H o f 1 55 o . hurch ist ry Britain, edit . 6 , p

168 . S o to Lan b ai n e s i n Oldys, in his M . n tes g , ays,

o a marginal n te, If Falstaff appears in this first

o part, then he c uld n ot be substituted for Oldcastle .

f e o h d He a t rwards th ug t better of it, an has added,in ” a "es later hand, , he might . 28 THE O F CHARACTER FALSTAFF .

fancied a boon companion, a jovial royster, and yet a coward to b o o t, contrary to the credit of all chronicles, o wning him a martial man of merit . The bes t is Sir John Falstaffe hath f relieved the memory o Sir John Oldcastle, and of late is substituted b uffoone in his place, but it matters as little what petulant p oets as what malicious Papists have written against him . “ 16 9 In Amends for Ladies, 4to . Lond . 3 , a play by Nathaniel Field, which, acco rding to

o Mr. C llier, could not have been written before

’ 1 o 6 11, Falstaff s description of h o n ur is men tioned by a citiz en of London as if it had been delivered by Sir John Oldcastle

I do e heare

" L f o to our ordship this aire m rning is fight,

ou n ev er ee And for yo ur ho no r . Did y s

w heere fat O The play the knight, hight ldcastle, Did tell y ou tru ely what this h ono r was ?

This single passage will alone render my

i h iz . third proposition h g lv probable, v , that some of the theatres, in acting Henry IV. , T o r . 29 HE CHARACTER FALSTAFF . retained the name of Oldcastle after the author ff had altered it to that of Falsta . " “ Early in the year 1600 appeared The first part of the true and honorable history of

o the life of Sir John Oldcastle, the go d Lord

Cobham, as it hath bene lately acted by the

f in m Right Honorable the Earle o N o t gha ,

Lord High Admiral o f England, his servants .

4 . . Written by William Shakespeare, to Lond

The name of the author is supposititious, and now it is a matter of wonder how so glaring an impositio n could have been suffered to pass unpunished, and even unnoticed . Such works were then of much less moment than they are now . B o dley, who was then forming his col lectio n, classes plays under the head of riffe ff ” “ ra es, and declares they shall never come into mie librarie It is possible,h o wever, that

Shakespeare may have edited this play, but,

6th 1 599-1600 Lo On Thursday, March , , the rd ’ C hamberlain s players acted the play of Sir J ohn

fo Ver eiken o Oldcastle be re , the Austrian ambassad r, ” “ to his great contentment See the Sidney State

” ‘ v ol. 1 5 . Letters, by C ollins, ii . p . 7 ' 30 THE C H C o r TAL TA ARA TER S FF. if he allowed his name to be put on the title page , it sh o ws a carelessnes s for his o wn n f reputatio , o which there are but too many instances . The speech of Lord Cobham "Sir

a 27 m a John Oldc stle) to the King, at p . , y confirm my conjecture

M o Lo o o a y graci us rd , unt y ur M jesty,

God ow e f Next unto my , I my li e ’ f And what is mine, either by nature s gi t, ’ l a l o . Or fo rtune s b o unty, is at y ur service

t Po o f R But for o bedience o the pe ome, I ow e him none ; n or shall his shaveling priests

E f. That are in ngland, alter my belie If out of H oly S cripture they can pro ve

That I am in an erro r, I w ill yield, And gladly take instru ction at their hands

d o e o But otherwise, I bese ch y ur Grace

’ n ot en r h My co nscience may be c oac d up on .

These, I think, are the only lines in the whole play which could with any probability be ascribed to Shakespeare, and even they pos sess but slender claims . The prologue co ntains an argument for two of the propositions I have r AL AE 1 THE C HARACTER o E ST E. 3

ol been endeavouring to establish . It is as f lows

The d o ubtfull title "Gentlemen) pr efixt V pon the Argument we haue in hand,

and w o f d May breed suspence, r ng ully isturb e The peacefull quiet of you r s etled thoughts

To o b r st p which scru ple, let this eefe suffice .

’ n ' It is o pamper d Glutto n we present, Nor aged C ou ncellour to youthful] sinne

o ne o e u o o But , wh se v rt e sh ne ab ue the rest,

a a P A v liant M rtyr, and a vertuo us eere , In who se true faith an d loyalty expr est

Vn t Sou erai ne and C o o his g , his untries weale We strine to pay that tribute o f o u r lo ue

’ "o fau u rs : L f ra ur o merit et aire Truth be g c d ,

’ ’ Since forg d inu en tion fo rmer time d efac d .

If we no w turn to the following scene in the same play, we shall find that the change in the nam e of Shakespeare ’ s knight m ust have been made about the same time . The King in disguise has j u st met with Sir J ohn, the thieving

w o pa rs o n of Wro tham, he n this dial gue takes place “ t. . P r i es Stand, true man, say s a thief ' 2 T o r 3 HE CHARAC TER FALSTAFF .

i n . K g Stand,thief, says a true man . How, if a thief ?

r i est. P Stand, thief, too .

i n o K g . Then , thief r true man , I must stand, I see . Howso ever the world wags, the trade of thieving yet will never down . What art thou ?

r i est. P A good fellow.

o o w Ki ng . So am I too ; I see th u d st kno me .

P r i est o ‘ . If thou be a good fell w, play the

’ o good fellow s part . Deliver thy purse with ut more ado .

n . Ki g . I have no money

o o P r i est. I must make you find s me bef re

o u we part . If you have no money, y shall have ware, as many sound blows as your skin can carry . ? i n n K g . Is that the plai truth

r i n o . o P est. Sirrah , more ado C me,come, give me the m o ney y ou have . Dispatch , I

cannot stand all day .

i n K g . Well, if thou wilt needs have it,

n there it is . Just the proverb, o e thief robs

84 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

Ki n for no g . Yes, faith, will I, so it be

murder.

P r i e t . A the s . Nay, I am a pitiful thief ll

’ hurt I do a man , I take but his purse . I ll

kill no man .

’

i n o do . K g . Then of my w rd I ll it

P r i e . st. Give me thy hand of the same

’

i n . K g There tis .

i o o P r est. Methinks the King sh uld be go d

to thieves, because he has been a thief himself,

’ altho ugh I think now he be turu d a true man .

' n Ki g . Faith, I have heard he has had an

’ ill name that way in s youth ; but how canst tho u tell that he has been a thief ? ? ’ P r i est. How Because he o nce robb d

to b e befo re I fell the trade myself, when that villano us guts that led him to all that roguery

’ was in s company there, that Falstaff. I next consider the internal evidence in Shakespeare’s plays themselves that Oldcastle f E once Supplied the place of Falsta f. very one will remember the rout of Falstaff and his P companions by the rince and Poins, n ear

Gadshill,when Henry tri umphantly exclaims o THE CHARACTER r FALSTAFF . 35

Got Now o with much ease . merrily to h rse ’ ’ Th t er d ss d f e thieves are sca t , and po ess with ear

S o n t strongly, that they dare o meet each o ther ;

E f fo r ach takes his ello w an o fficer .

' Awa ood Ned Falst sweats o d h y ,g ; afl t eat , And lards the lean earth as he walks along

’

n t for o . Wer t o laughing , I sh uld pity him

It will be seen that in the fifth line a fo o t is l actually deficient, and Oldcast e, instead of

Falsta o o m . fi; w uld perfectly c mplete the etre It is true that some o ther explanatio n might be

o f f ered, perhaps equally plausible ; but it is at any rate a singular co incidence that in the very first place where the name Falstaff o ccurs in

the text, an additional syllable should be

required. f f In the seco nd scene o the irst act, Falstaff “ o f asks the Prince, Is not my h stess o the tavern P a most sweet wench rince Henry answers, d As the h o ney of Hybla, my ol lad of the ” o to castle. I c nsider this be a pun , in the

original play as first written , on the name of Si r t Th J ohn Oldcas le. e commentators say this

o passage was transferred fr m the old play ; but,

0 2 36 T HE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

ff as Master Ford observes, I cann o t put o ” m o o y opini n so easily . I am c nfirmed in my conjecture by a passage in the play o f Sir John

Oldcastle, where there is a similar play upo n words

’ o n There s e, they c all him Sir J ohn Oldcastle . He has n ot his name fo r n ought ; fo r like a c astle

o o a D th he enc mp ss them within his walls .

as But till that c tle be subverted quite , ’ We ne er shall be at quiet in the realm .

’ I n o w beg to call the reader s particular

t 2 . . 2 attention o a passage in Part , Act iii , Sc , which affo rds u ndeniable proof that the name o f Oldcastle o nce o ccupied the place which

f n ow o Falstaf h olds . Shall w is recalling remi n i n f sce ces o his yo unger days, and he brings Falstaff in among o ther wild co mpanion s

ff w o b o Then was Jack Falsta , n o Sir J hn , a y,

e to Thomas Mow br a Duke o Nor and pag g , f

k. o no t f ol It was Sir J hn Oldcastle, and

who w s to o . Falstaff, a page that n bleman Shakespeare co uld n ot have fallen into an erro r i by following the older play, because the c r 7 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF. 3

cum stance is not there mentioned ; and it would be arming oneself against the fo rce of

o evidence, which already is so overp wering o n the Opposite side, to class this among

’ Shakespeare s historical blunders . I do not consider it necessary in this place to multiply l references to the o d chroniclers, in support

of my assertion, that the historical fact, to which Shakespeare alludes in this passage,

n o t to ff applies to Oldcastle, and Falsta . O n e will be sufficient, and I have selected the fol ’ l o wing extract from Weever s poetical Life

12 . . 160 1 of Oldcastle, mo Lond , where he is introduced speaking in his own perso n

- d of flw r i n o o Within the spring ti e my g y uth , He [his father] stept into the winter o f his age Made meanes "Mercurius thus begins the truth)

M w r is That I was made Sir Thomas o b a pag e .

P erhaps, however, the conclusion of the epilogue to the two plays furnishes us with the m o st decisive evidence that Shakespeare had delineated a character under the nam e of Old c ff o astle which had given o ence, c nfirming the 38 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

tradition handed do wn to u s by Rowe, and the

w m s relatio n hich Dr. Ja e gives

O ne o I es h o u . o u word m re, b eec y If y be n o t to o much cl oyed with fat meat, o ur humble autho r will co ntinue the sto ry w ith Sir J ohn in

u h of it, and make yo merry wit fair Katharine t ff France : where, fo r anything I know, Fals a

f be shall die o a sweat, unless already he killed with yo ur hard Opinions ; for Oldcastle died a

m n ot . artyr, and this is the man It is unnecessary to pursu e this subject fur ther. The other n o tices I have collected are “ mere repetitions of what are given ab o vefi and add little weight to the general evidence . I

have now o nly my fo urth position to defend, for I shall pass o ver my first proposition , as a

point already decided, with a reference to Mr .

’ Collier s w o rk o n the English stage, who gives it as his opinio n that Shakespeare was indebted ” fo r the bare hint of the delightful creatio n of

F Heylen, as quoted by arm er, says, This Sir

o tolfe o o J hn Fas was, with ut d ubt, a valiant and wise

o captain, n twithstanding the stage hath made merry ”— ’ ee l ol i . . 16 . with him . S B oswel s Malone,v . xvii ,p 39 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

Falstaff to the old play of The Famous Vic ” o t ries, and nothing more . There must of course be great uncertainty in fixing the precise date when Shakespeare made the alteratio n in the name of thecharac ter of his fat knight ; and my co njecture on this p oint depends entirely upon an opinion which

s I have formed, and shall here after publi h , on the date of the composition of another — ” play the Merry Wives of Windsor . It

to wo uld be unfair, then , o f course, place my view of the subject in any other light than that of conjecture formed upon premises, the proba bility o f which must at present be taken upon my own authority . I believe the first sketch “ of the Merry Wives to have been written 15 93 in the year , and the name of Oldcastle must have been changed to Falstaff befo re that sketch was written . Everything tends to

o pr ve this . For instance, the first metrical piece which o ccurs in it co uld not have been written with the fo rmer name

And I to Fo rd will likewise tell

H ow a ff F lsta , varlet vile, 4 0 TH o r E CHARACTER FALSTAFF.

o d o W ul have her l ve, his d ove would pro ve,

A nd his d eke be defile .

“ It may be objected that, as the Merry Wives ” has little or no necessary connexion with the historical plays—as we have no cer tain evidence to show whether it was writte n before or after the two parts of Henry IV . , the settlement of the question of names, if I may so express myself, in the former, is no guide whatever to the period at which the change was made in the o ther plays . In h i reply, I must confess this position is hypot et cal , unless my readers agr ee with me in be “ ” lieving the Merry Wives to have been

of . written after the Second Part Henry IV , and befo re Henry V. , a subject which it would be irrelevant to discuss in this place .

The First Part of Henry IV. was entered

’ 25th 9 - at Stationers Hall, on Feb . , 15 7 8, f under the title o , A booke intitled the His iii fl' l the battai e torye of Henry j , with his at Shrewsburye against Henry HottSpure of the

i t n Northe, with the conce p ed Mirth of Sir Joh

42 T o r HE CHARACTER FALSTAFF .

It would not be diffi cult to multiply si milar

o extracts . Mr . C llier has printed a do cument which shows how Falstaff was probably attired for the stage at this early perio d, which is

f o attested by the creditable name o Inig Jones . “ A character is to be dressed like a Sir Jo hn

t ff roabe low Fals a , in a of russet, quite , with a l great belley, like a swo en man , long mousts

h ows h rte cheos, the s e s o , and out of them

t : to sh w great toes, like naked fee e buskins ea ” a great swolen leg . Thus it would seem that siz e has alway s been the prevailing characteris

’ tic oi Falstaff s theatrical appearance . This consideration leads me to remark that

f xhi it d in the character o Oldcastle,as e b e The

Famous Victories, could no t by itself have developed so popular and general a n o tion of ” hugeness, as that suggested in the extracts

I have given relative to him or Falstaff. On the whole, then, independently of the entire evidence being in its favour, I think the account

o given by Dr. James would be the m st plau sible conjecture we could form, were we with out the aid of that evidence . THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . 43

The o nly objection, as far as I can see, whi ch can be raised against the veracity of

’ Dr. James s acco unt, is the slight discrepancy

I have previously mentioned . My own faith is n o t at all shaken by this circumstance, because he was repeating from memory the doubts of another, as he had heard them in co nversation, and was probably more solici tous of placing the question in a position to enable him to defend his hero Oldcastle, than of giving a correct version of what he considered

o an err r in Shakespeare . I cannot think that he wo uld have introduced Shakespeare in the manner in which he has, if he had not been pretty certain of the truth of the anecdote .

F stolf to a , o,was an Oxford man,and he resents his suppo sed degradation under the title of

s im Fal taff. His successors were apparently pressed with the same notion . Warton tells “ us that the magnificent Knight, Sir John

astolf F , bequeathed estates to Magdalen Col lege , part of which were appropriated to buy liveries for some of the senior scholars ; but the benefactions in time yielding no more TH E CHARACTER O F FALSTAFF . than a penny a week to the scholars who re ceived the liveries, they were called, by way of ’ ” - ta s uckr m m en . co ntempt, Fals fi b a An anonymous and inedited p o et of the early part o f the seventeenth century, wh o se

o of MS . works were formerly in the p ssession

fo r Oldys, complains sadly of Shakespeare, a similar reason

Here to evince that scandal has been thrown

f o har a tr ed "p on a name o h on ur, c c

m o o o ffoo Fro a wr ng pers n , c ward and bu n ;

’ f f o e e C all i n your easy aiths, ro m what y u v r ad ’ To laugh at Falstaffe ; as a hum our fr am d ’

T t misn am d . o grace the stage , o please the age ,

No l onger please yo urselves to injure names

Who to o o : if w h lived h n ur , as o dare breathe

’ l f o H o f A syl able r m arry s ch ice, the ames , ’ n f d f C o err by princes, may redeem ro m d eath Live Fastolffe then whose trust and c o urage o nce ” o Merited the first g vernment in France .

“ sacramentis dedi atio n The De c is sermo, which Dr . James mentions, is still preserved

of o in the archives Magdalen College, Oxf rd, THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . 4 5

with the following curious original memo

ran dum

“ S uo domino colendissimo magistro Wil

o W nflete a lelm ay , sedis ecclesi e Sancti Swy

thini W n o niensis a o y t episcopo, qu e lim ante tempus co nsecrationis dictas ecclesi ae templum Dagon vocabatur temp o re Paganorum gen t t raes nt tur raes rl to ium, e p e a domino p c p epis copo de beneficio domini Jo hannis Fastolf mili v tis, ob memoriam sui, quam is m o dicum

uantitatis fuerit q , die , sextodecimo mensis

De em r s 14 c b i , Anno Christi 73 , per Willel m m W ” u yrcestre . But I have said enough respe cting Sir John

Fastolf who o , , brave as he pr bably was, has acquired o nly an adventitious imp o rtance,by ’ “ being confused with o ur poet s c oward and ” ff o bu o on . The two were c nfused because

’ l W rcestr e Fastolf s Wi liam y was physician . - o oo S . S o . 4 o . 8 In his c mm nplace b k, in M l an , p 7 ,

tr e fo Fastolf o di cti s Wy r ces in rms us that , biit ex

i e . asm ati s f 158 di ebu s passi on ibu s [ . ] in ra a prima

i on i s a? f ss u t ex e die i n cept dict ebris ethic , bene per p ” r i enti am numeram . 6 TH o r 4 E CHARACTER FALSTAFF .

few, as Fuller says in a passage I have qu o ted, do heed the inconsiderable difference in m ” spelling o f their na es . What reaso n have we for thinking that Shakespeare took m o re “ heed of this matter than his co ntempo f raries,when he chose the name o Falstaff ? If writers on the absurd dispute concerning the ’ orth ography of the poet s name wo uld but re

how member this, much trouble might be saved

the f o o . of in refuting af ected inn vati n , With these observations I conclude my col lection of facts and arguments, all of whi ch tend m ore or less to confirm the literal truth of

o u s o the traditi n handed down to by R we .

’ D Israeli in Mr. , his recently published work, “ justly remarks, that, though the propagato rs of gossip are sad blunderers, they rarely aspire to be original inventors and, in this instance, the course of a century has not accumulated any p o sthumo us additions to the o riginal fact as it really happened . ’ m Rowe s life of our poet is valuable, inas u ch as he occasionally gi ves us information no t to t be found elsewhere, though evidently no THE CHARACTE R o r FALSTAFF . 4 7

always in a very accurate manner. As an

editor, he was below par ; but it must be remem

bered that, after the four folios,he was the first

of o to collect the works Shakespeare t gether . ” " of This Rowe, says the Earl Oxford, a

special editor, though he pretended to be a

poet, yet he knew little of what he was about, for there never was a worse edition ; he n o t only left the errors that had been in o ther

editions, but added many m o re o f his o wn,with ” most vile prints . " nwearied industry has exerted itself fo r biographical particulars relative to Shake

o speare . How little has hithert been dis co vered Yet I am not wholly without hopes, even now, of something more turning up, for many private collections still remain unsearched—and there is no telling what the

o f o A archives our ancient n bility contain . t all events ,let us hope, that wh o ever can ln any manner aid this important enquiry, will no t hesitate in sending any new info rmation fo rth

fo r to the world at once, documentary evidence

544 oo o MS . Harl . 7 a b k c ntaining some curi o o u s biogr aphical informati n . 4 8 T H o r HE C ARACTER FALSTAFF .

on this subject is of so high a value, that it o he ff to ught not to su ered remain in manuscript . " nder this impression , I will here co ntribute

two a v ex é o m , albeit fragments, which have hitherto escape d the researches of all the

biographers of our great dramatist . My readers will perhaps be surprised to learn that the fragments I allude to were dis ’ in covered Aubrey s manuscript collections, in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, which have been so repeatedly referred to by the biog ras phers and critics . It will be recollected, that ’ A D venant ol ubrey, in his life of A , in that c lection, gives us two anecdotes regarding

Shakespeare . These have been frequently

t o printed ; but, during a recent visit Oxford, 1 had the curiosity to inspect the original

two h manuscript, and found that paragrap s,

thr ou h but not w ith a contem o scr atched g , p

had . r ary pen, escaped notice By the aid of a strong light, and a powerful magnify

to ing glass, I was enabled read them entirely,

. with the exceptio n o f a few letters . I here present them to the reader

“ R—b sa l . I have heard parson y, that

50 F THE CH ARACTER o r FAL STA F . minute enquiries of this nature would be con sidered fl o the tri ing ; but so little do we kn w of personal character o f our natio nal bard, that every early notice of him is worthy o f pre

- servation . His pre eminence was not acknow ledged by his contemp o raries ; his wo rks fell into neglect while written mem o rials of him r emained ; and when he emerged into universal celebrity, we find nough t but a few accidental notices of him preserved, and five autograph signatures

But although, as I have just said, his pre eminence was not acknowledged by his con temporaries, his reputation mu st have been very considerable, even in those days ; perhaps, however, eclipsed by the fame of other drama tis ts. Yet it is seldom that we find so just a tribute paid to his genius, while he was yet in th e land of the living, as Samuel Sheppard " gives in a poem entitled The Fairy King,

S 2 o L R Po . 8 M . awl . et , in the B dleian ibrary

a S . a folio volume on paper . I h ve never seen this M mentioned in print . 5 1 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

written in imitatio n of Spenser, soon after the

6 10 . s n ot year 1 The author, in thi poem , o nly mentions Shakespeare, but marshalls the other English poets in chronol ogical o rder, commencing with Chaucer and Skelton . I am tempted to give rather a long extract from this part of the work

’ S o d e thin ke t n o pencer the next,wh m I o shame

To t if n w w o rke ffo imita e, o his a rds

S o o 0 how fa f vast a gl ry ire a ame ,

H n n ad hee ot d oated o explo ded wo rds,

’ Had waited on him " Let his ho n ou r d name

’ ’ Find venerati on b o ve the Earth s great lo rds "

P o f Po o Great rince ets, th u canst never die,

’ L o dg d in thy rare imm ortal] history

Imm or t ll M rr a i ou r o f all p o esie ,

S o f O o r etio u s " prit rpheus , bring y ur p balms

Go d o f o to Inventi n , thy memo ry ’ off Wee l er incense, singing hymns and psalms "

’ J o o f ou r J o y laurell, ve s deare Mercury, In r t t gy his grave with myr le and with palms,

o a Wh se r re desert first kindled my desire ,

a mee co e ill 5 t And g ve nfid nce t o aspire . D 2 5 2 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

H to Then arring n , wh ose sweet conversion vies

’ ’ With A ri osto s fam d o riginal] ; O what a passion will his s oule surpri z e,

’ ’ o n t clo d Wh se mind s o g with lumpish earth , w ho shall Peruse thy Annotatio ns and applies Their several] heights as they in o rder fall ’ No r o o m iss , this mitted , hadst th u d o f fame ; Thy Epigrams shal] canoni z e thy name "

’ C e w ho H o hapman the n xt, makes g reat mer s

s ong ,

’ ] f P rnassid s Th eternal b oast o the e e , To vaile its b onnet to o u r English tongue

an the o e o f o r What c p w r wit art expresse , ’ o off all o o That, with ut ering that s h ly wr ng ,

’ Wee lodg d in his large brest,must n o t c onfesse

N r can o o wee match his m st admired play,

Either in S oph o cles o r Seneca .

f f Wo oton the next, whose ragments have arre m o re O f wo rth then mighty v olumes full compleat ; The richest wit may b orrow from his store ;

fl ithie A g eneral] sch oller, owing p neat

f fo An able minister o state , there re Q uallifide by his prince for actions great ; THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF . 53

’ Tis a meas uring cast which o f them were

The wiser king or wiser cou n cello u r .

] e e Daniel the n xt, grave and s ntentio us , In all high kn o wledge excellent hee sung

’ ’ The b raw les twixt "o rke and Lancaster mongst

us, With an angel-like and a golden tongue ;

him r No thing in vaine o ridiculo us ,

H to f n is lines like his ancie, hie and stro g ; More haughty tragedies n o age hath seene ’ ‘ ’ P r ZE i n e. Then his hilotas , o gypt a Q ueen

K J a rin ce o o ing ames the next, p with ut c mpare , ’ During wh o se r eigne the heavens were pleas d to smile ;

’ H w f e ee hated s o rds and loath d the name o warr , And yet all natio ns foard this Bo rean ile H is works, his learning , and great parts declare , Hee w r ot a mo st succinct elab o rate stile ;

H w o rke is converse with the Nine , let that rare b Declare, where Don J ohn o nce mo re eats the

Turke.

“ C ease Gr eece to o a a Bac on the next . , , b st the p rts " Wee Of Plato or great Aristotle , 54 ' ‘ THE CHARACTER o r FAL S I AF F .

d an In this rare man , have all their r a y t arts ,

Who a v was a w lking , li ing librarie

o o f W nder men , thy high , thy vast deserts

’ Deserve a Plutarch s pen " By thee wee vie And vanquish all the au n ci en ts ; tho u alone ’ a r is d H st a o u r tongue to full perfection .

Shakespeare the next ; w ho w ro t so much , so

well,

’ his a m az d That, when I view bulke , I st nd a ;

s A genius o inexhaustible , That hath such tall and numero us trophies

’ r ais d , ] Let him bee th ought a bl o ck, an infidel , Shall dare to skr een e the lustre of his praise

o a d athl ss Wh se wo rks shall find their due, e e e d ate , S c o rning the teeth o f time o r force o f fate

“ ’ Now my charms are all o er thrown . I have brought t ogether what I have been able

’ to collect o n a few p o ints in Shakespeare s — literary histo ry points undo ubtedly of inte rest and curiosity ; and if I have succeeded i n

n o r setting at rest a y disputed question, made

o t an approach to it o n either side, I shall n 5 5 THE CHARACTER o r FALSTAFF .

c onsider my lab o ur entirely thrown away . A time may co me when the very names of all our S hakespearian editors and co mmentators shall be forgo tten ; but will the Apalachian moun

tains, the banks of the Ohio, and the plains of ” f Scio ta, ever resound with the accents o our great dramatist ? The beneficial effects of

their researches may then remain, perhaps when the memory of that langu age which “ styled the genius of England a barbarian,

l ut I shal have perished . B will not dive

ther into futurity.

THE END.

W . E. Pain ter 342 Strand L , , , ondon , Prin ter .

d ec ss e ors everythingwhich theyhave that is valuable,

i or either n quotation remark, and then abuse them

oo tw o or in g d set terms . This is the way with three o f the later brood of commentators and editors ; but

f f o H li w ho it is ar r m being the case with Mr . al well, ' proceeds upon the principle, whi ch is at least an

o on of o h nest e, intr ducing as little as may be of to fo r m i o o what is be und in the na i or u ed ti ns, r in of the pages preceding writers . But he w h o proceeds up on this principle must be content to be told that there is much omitted which r o o i f o eaders have s me right t expect,and that a wh le o v lume, though it may be of thin and elegant shape hi to ill of like t s, is be devoted to the ustration a

of si—ngle play, there must be something surplusage something whi ch the fastidious r eader will thi nk ’ o in of om a o . For is bey nd the just l e a c ment t r s duty , whatever opinio n may be formed of the taste and of f o o judgment the old critics, the praise o lab ri usness can hardly be denied to them and assuredly, with

e to o hardly an exception, the b st of what is be d ne for f l o f r the e ficient il ustrati n o these w itings, is already done in the notes and pr olog om en a of the o established editi ns . Thi s play in particular has been well illustrated to by them, though we still think that more is be o to o f of o to d ne . It appears us t be more ull allusi n the authors and events of the time than has been o w supp sed, and that there is particular satire as ell as general satire of the min or theatricals of the age of S a ll of ffo h kespear e, in a that we find the e rts in - i this way of the hard handed men of Athens . Th s is f at least a fair subject for urther research, and we H lli l e fo o to wish Mr . a we l had be n rtunate en ugh l l o have detected the particu ar a lusi ns . He is a great s grubber in librarie , printed and manuscript ; and the world has already begun to expect somethi ng nl valuable from him,n ot in this line o y, but in every n o line of curious research ; r will it, we think, in

o - o the end be disappointed . The l ng disputed questi n ‘ ’ o n the learning late deceased in beggary he leaves still as much undetermined as it was left by hi s pre d ecessor s and as to the famous passage of the ‘ ’ ’ m on o n ot Mer aid the d lphin s back, he has the on e of slightest notice of it, deeming it, we presume, those which others before him had sufficiently di s o o of hi s ow n cussed and, having n thing t add , he leaves it on the honest principle of saying nothing o to where he had n thing say . "et those w ho are impressed w ith the singular of w h o n ot o beauty the passage "and are l), w uld have been glad to have received at his hands some

o o o or o c ntributi n, h wever slight ; , at least, t have seen the result of his ow n consideratio n of the con fli cti n of R o i n g argument Warburton and its n, the of o o o n ot first instance, and the ther c mmentat rs, fo . B oaden w h o o rgetting Mr , has written ingeni usly on It t o and learnedly the passage . seems be the f o of ashi n the time to decry the old commentators, but we would wish those w ho affect to despise the hands which had administered to their own wants to hi and deficiencies, recur to the notes on t s passage, o as sh wing that, whether they are right, or whether o n o all they are wr ng "and they are t right) , there is some very elegant entertainment to be gained fr om r of o the w itings the c mmentators .

H l . 3 4 o o Mr . al iwell, at pp and , has s me riginal r of o i emarks on the want c nsistency, n respect of

hi do n ot e o s time,in t s drama . We m an anachr ni ms, for f it is mani est that Shakespeare gave, and did it

of ow n o o advisedly,the manners his times t times l ng

o of on e preceding, but inc nsistently in the time part of of the action with the time another . These re marks are valuable, as is everything which throws any new light on the way in which this free spirit proceeded in the production of his immortal

r on o i works, o the principles which the m dern crit c

f or hi s ought to proceed in his judgment o them, in efforts at r estoration from the debased state in which it must be admitted that they have been delivered dow n to us by the printers of the time . The Opinio n Of the critics w ho have written on

o the question of the chro nological rder, that the ’ Mi dsummer Night s Dr eam is referred to a per io d when the cold summer of 1594 was fresh in every ’ ill b ody s recollection, is very happily ustrated by H fo on e Mr . alliwell, by a passage which he und in ’ f Fo SS . o L o rman s M , in the Ashm lean ibrary, at fo Ox rd . fo on f The play being, as it were, unded the airy m o mythology of the time, it ight seem that the wh le of that subject might be appropriately introduced and

d ' on or discussed in a bo y of annotation this play, in o o to as i n an intr ducti n it but then, the subjects used a similar manner by Shakespeare are almost without o number,the subjects are alm st numberlessthat might thus be introduced into any work on Shakespeare So o and his writings . mething must,und ubtedly, be said respecting the Fairies and R obin Goo dfellow, an d the rest ; but when the genius of Shakespeare was justified by showing that he had adhered to the o o o p pular n ti ns respecting them, we think that all o of was d ne that was within the limits just criticism, f o Of and that the urther pr secutio n the su bject, n e of which is, indeed, o great beauty and interest, should be reserved for a work expressly on the popu i o of E H lar superstit ns ngland . Mr . alliwell has, of o f however, in this part the w rk, the merit o bring

o f o r ing f rward passages r m Old w iters, which bear o o upon the subject, that had n t previ usly been

r n o f observed, o , at least, were t to be ound in the o o o rdi nary b ooks on this subject . We rej ice t see ’ C o - Mr . llier s black letter ballad, entitled The ’ P or R o Goodf o Merry uck, bin ell w, made easily accessible in this work to those w ho take an interest ’ of H in this subject . It fills eight pages Mr . alliwell s o af volume, and will bear t be read even ter The ’ Ny m phi di a . The illustrations of the popular notion of the ’ oo o E o Man in the M n, which prevails all ver ur pe, are good in themselves but i f the mere allusion of Shakespeare to such a notion is to be made a reason fo o oo of o o r intr ducing, in a b k c mment up n him , all the learning that can be anywhere collected about it, we fear that Shakespeare himself is in danger Of

of o being buried beneath this mass his ann tation . “ o Of Mr . Halliwell gives an acc unt the various attempts which have been made to revive thi s play

an r . Soo f e R s o o as acting d ama n a t r the e t rati n, it 1 ’ 29 6 2 . T was revived . September , 6 o the King s ’ Mi dsummer Ni ht s Dr e m Theatre, where we saw g a , e fo n or which I had never s en be re, shall ever again, for o o it is the m st insipid, ridicul us play that ever I ’ ’ ’ m f f o P e s s D saw in y li e . This is r m py iary . We ’ do n ot o n ot to P e s s f w nder that it was py taste, or he was a coarse man ; but we also think that it pleases o on better in the cl set than the stage, though we half recall the Opini on when we recollect h ow effec ti v ely it has been brought ou t at C ovent-garden o "et o Theatre in the present seas n . there, th ugh o o adm irably acted, it has wed much t the pardo n able artifice Of introducing recitatives i n the long

o of r e- o passages, which, th ugh p eminent p etical

f ll flat on ear beauty,would a the when listened to i n

for a crowded theatre . They are the sweeter m o

ments Of private study .

e . H li In the ninth chapt r, Mr al well enters on o o of the idle question of the rth graphy the name, r o which he writes S hakespea e. This is acc rdant with the printed o rtho gr aphy of Shakespeare himself f o and his riends . What better auth rity, when it had received also the sancti on of the great body of English authors dow n to a recent perio d ? But because in the m anuscript of the time the name is f o e f Shaks er e ound written, and by the p et hims l , p , ’ ’ D I r aeli t . s his, which Mr calls the curt shoc k f o orm , must be ad pted . But anybody acquainted with the manuscript of the age of Shakespeare knows that in his time the utmost license was used in respect Of proper names an d this n ew orthography is only - fo i on e ou t of twenty seven rms, n which we have h eard that the name may be fo und in the wr itings of

e of the ag Shakespeare, in the county to which he

o to o f o o o bel nged . As the p et himsel , the nly pers n f

f Of o his amily any acc unt, we believe, that as he

hakes ea r e so fo printed it S p , is it uni rmly printed by

o o his co ntemp rari es, except that it s metimes wants P o tw o the final 6 . It was Bell and inkert n, critics h o a to of th e lower form, w first ttempted supersede the old form by S haksper e and we remember then

f o n ot w h o o o the number o pers ns—was small pr n unced the name accordingly a heresy still m ore danger u e o o oo o con o s, as it d str ys s me g d p etry which is secr ated to his memory . We conclude with quoting from an en voy to his o o fo i n little volume, in which the auth r c mes rward his o w n person If there be any of my readers w h o agree with me i n n ot rejecting any illustrations

Of writings so valuable as these, they may perhaps consider the materials here brought together worthy their co nsideration ; and it will depend upon their verdict, given on the present Occasion,whether I shall be induced to offer to their notice similar annotations on o of o o s me the ther plays . This, h wever, I may

o f be all wed to say, without fear o being accused of o o of the eg tism, that, whatever may be the Opini n r of o u public especting the merits my little v l me, I have always endeavoured to present the reader wi th f o of o new acts, rather than adaptati ns Old nes, and

f l o n w have care ul y av ided a system, o I am sorry to o o say much in practice, f appr priating the best and attacking the weakest p oints of the older commenta

of o Of o o t ors,w h o have, despite the utcries s me m dern o critics against their err rs, done so much towards the ’ a of o r ight underst nding their auth r . H l an d o as Mr. alliwel is right, as l ng he adheres to thi s honest principle, we shall hail the appear ance of his future lucubrations with the certainty of that ou r knowledge Shakespeare, and what he

f n ot a as . hath le t us, will rem in precisely it was