and command you in heer Majte. name for such, and is heer pleasure to see him fournissed with post horses in his trauail to the sea side, and ther to soecke up such schippinge as schalbe fit for his transportations, he pay nothing for the same, for wich tis schal be your sufficient warrante soo see that your faile noth thereof at your perilles. From Bifleete, the 2 uf September, 1592. Your friend, C. HOWARD."

was to invert the order of the syllables: thus, in the 'Shepherd's Calendar,' Algrind stands for Archbishop Grindal, and Morel for Elmor, Bishop of London. In Lodge's Fig for Momus,' we also find Denroy for Matthew Royden, and Ringde for Dering. Precisely according to this method, Garmomble is Momblegar-Mumpelgart. We think this is decisive as to the allusion; and that the allusion is decisive as to the date of the play. What would be a good joke when the Court was at Windsor in 1593, with the visit of the Duke fresh in the memory of the courtiers, would lose its point at a later period.

"The "German duke" visited Windsor; was shown "the splendidly beautiful and royal castle;" hunted in the "parks full of fallow-deer and other game;" heard the music of an organ, and of other instruments, with the voices of little boys, as well as a We now proceed to the more interesting sermon an hour long, in a church covered question-was 'The Merry Wives of Windwith lead; and, after staying some days, sor' produced, either after 'The First Part departed for Hampton Court. His grace of Henry IV.,' after the 'Second Part,' after and his suite must have caused a sensation Henry V.,' or before all of these historical at Windsor. Probably mine host of the plays? Let us first state the difficulties Garter had really made "grand preparation which inseparably belong to the circumfor a Duke de Jarmany;"-at any rate he stances under which the similar characters of would believe Bardolph's story,—“ the Ger- | the historical plays and the comedy are mans desire to have three of your horses." found, if the comedy is to be received as a Was there any dispute about the ultimate continuation of the historical plays. payment for the duke's horses for which he was "to pay nothing?" Was my host out of his reckoning when he said, "They shall have my horses, but I'll make them pay?" Sir Hugh, who has a spite against mine host, thus tells him the ill news. "Where is mine Host of the Garter? Now, mine Host, I would desire you to have a care of your entertainments, for there is three sorts of cosen garmombles is cosen all the Host of Maidenhead and Readings." We have no doubt whatever that the author of the 'Merry Wives of Windsor' literally rendered the tale of mine host's perplexity for the amusement of the Court. For who was the German Duke who visited Windsor in the autumn of 1592 ? "His Serene Highness the Right Honourable Prince and Lord, Frederick Duke of Würtemberg and Teck, Count of Mümpelgart.” The passport of Lord Howard describes him as Count Mombeliard. And who are those who have rid away with the horses? "Three sorts of cosen garmombles." One device of the poets of that day for masking a real name under a fictitious

The Falstaff of the two Parts of 'Henry IV.,' who dies in 'Henry V.,' but who, according to Malone, comes alive again in 'The Merry Wives,' is found at Windsor living lavishly at the Garter Inn, sitting “at ten pounds a week," with Bardolph, and Nym, and Pistol, and the Page, his “followers." At what point of his previous life is Falstaff in this flourishing condition? At Windsor he is represented as having committed an outrage upon one Justice Shallow. Could this outrage have been perpetrated after the borrowing of the " thousand pound," which was unpaid at the time of Henry the Fifth's coronation; or did it take place before Falstaff and Shallow renewed their youthful acquaintance under the auspices of Justice Silence? Johnson says, "This play should be read between 'King Henry IV.' and King Henry V.,' ,"" that is, after Falstaff's renewed intercourse with Shallow, the borrowing of the thousand pounds, and the failure of his schemes at the coronation. Another writer says, "It ought rather to be read between the First and Second Part of

6

'King Henry IV.'”—that is, before Falstaff | the sketch, Master Shallow (we do not find even his name of Robert) is indeed a "cavalero justice," according to our Host of the Garter, but his commission may be in Berkshire for

66

Slender, indeed, is "as good as is any in Glostershire, under the degree of a squire," and he is Shallow's cousin ;-but of Shallow "the local habitation" is undefined enough to make us believe that he might have been a son, or indeed a father (for he says, "I am fourscore") of the real Justice Shallow. Again:-In 'Henry IV., Part I.,' we have a Hostess without a name, the "good pintpot" who is exhorted by Falstaff “love thy husband;”—in ‘Henry IV., Part II.,' we have Hostess Quickly,- a poor widow," according to the Chief Justice, to whọm Falstaff owes himself and his money too;— in 'Henry V.,' this good Hostess is "the quondam Quickly," who has married Pistol, and who, if the received opinion be correct, died before her husband returned from the wars of Henry V. Where shall we place the Mistress Quickly, than whom "never a woman in Windsor knows more of Anne's mind,”and who defies all angels "but in the way of honesty?"-She has evidently had no previous passages with Sir John Falstaff;— she is "a foolish carrion" only,-Dr. Caius's nurse, or his dry nurse, or his cook, or his laundry;-she has not heard Falstaff declaim, 'as like one of these harlotry players as I ever see;"—she has not sate with him by a seacoal fire, when goodwife Keech, the butcher's wife, came in and called her "gossip Quickly;"

had met Shallow at his seat in Gloucestershire, at which meeting Shallow recollects nothing that had taken place at Windsor, and had clean forgotten the outrages of Fal-aught that the poet tells us to the contrary. staff upon his keeper, his dogs, and his deer. But Falstaff had been surrounded by much more important circumstances than had belonged to his acquaintance with Master Shallow. He had been the intimate of a Prince he had held high charge in the royal army. We learn indeed that he is a "soldier" when he addresses Mrs. Ford; but he entirely abstains from any of those allusions to his royal friend which might have been supposed to be acceptable to a Merry Wife of Windsor. In the folio copy of the amended play we have, positively, not one allusion to his connection with the court. In the quarto there is one solitary passage, which would apply to any courtto that of Elizabeth, as well as to that of Henry V.—“Well, if the fine wits of the court hear this, they'll so whip me with their keen jests that they'll melt me out like tallow." In the same quarto, when Falstaff hears the noise of hunters at Herne's Oak, he exclaims, "I'll lay my life the mad Prince of Wales is stealing his father's deer." This points apparently at the Prince of 'Henry IV.;' but we think it had reference to the Prince of the 'Famous Victories,' —a character with whom Shakspere's audience was familiar. The passage is left out in the amended play; but we find another passage which certainly is meant for a link, however slight, between 'The Merry-she did not see him "fumble with the Wives' and 'Henry IV.:' Page objects to Fenton that "he kept company with the wild Prince and with Pointz." The corresponding passage in the quarto is "the gentleman is wild-he knows too much."

What does Shallow do at Windsor-he who inquired "how a good yoke of bullocks at Stamford fair?"-Robert Shallow, of Glostershire, "a poor esquire of this county, and one of the king's justices of the peace?" It is true that we are told by Slender that he was "in the county of Gloster, justice of peace, and coram," but this information is first given us in the amended edition. In

sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his fingers' ends," when "there was but one way." Falstaff and Quickly are strangers. She is to him either "goodwife" or "good maid,”—and at any rate only "fair woman." Surely, we cannot place Mistress Quickly of "The Merry Wives' after 'Henry V.,' when she was dead; or after 'The Second Part of Henry IV.,' when she was a poor widow;" or before 'The Second Part,' when she had a husband and children. She must stand alone in 'The Merry Wives,'—an undefined predecessor of the famous Quickly of the Boar's Head.

66

But Pistol and Bardolph-are they not the same "irregular humourists" (as they are called in the original list of characters to "The Second Part of Henry IV.') acting with Falstaff under the same circumstances? We think not. The Pistol of 'The Merry Wives' is not the "ancient" Pistol of 'The Second Part of Henry IV.' and of ‘Henry V.,' nor is Bardolph the "corporal" Bardolph of 'The Second Part of Henry IV.,' nor the "lieutenant Bardolph of Henry V.' In the title-page, indeed, of the sketch, published as we believe without authority as a substitute for the more complete play, we have "the swaggering vaine (vein) of ancient Pistoll and corporal Nym." Corporal Nym is no companion of Falstaff in the historical plays, for he first makes his appearance in the 'Henry V.' Neither Pistol, nor Bardolph, nor Nym, appear in 'The Merry Wives' to be soldiers serving under Falstaff. They are his "cogging companions" of the first sketch; they are his "coney-catching rascals" of the amended play;-in both they are his "followers," whom he can turn away, discard, cashier; but Falstaff is not their "captain."

| Would any audience ever endure such a violence to their habitual modes of thought? Would the readers of 'The Spectator' have tolerated the revival of Sir Roger de Coverley in 'The Guardian?' Could the mother of the Mary of Avenel of 'The Monastery' be found alive in 'The Abbot,' except through the agency of the White Lady? The conception is much too monstrous.

Every person who has written on the character of Falstaff admits the inferiority of the butt of 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' to the wit of the Boar's Head. It is remarkable that in Morgann's very elaborate Essay on the Character of Falstaff' not one of his characteristics is derived from the comedy. It has been regretted, by more than one critic, that Shakspere should have carried on the disgrace of Falstaff in the conclusion of 'Henry IV.,' to the further humiliation of the scenes at Datchet Mead and Herne's Oak; and, what is worse, that Shakspere should in the comedy have exaggerated the vices of Falstaff, and brought him down from his intellectual eminence. Shakspere found somewhat similar incidents to the adventures It certainly does appear to us that these of Falstaff with Mrs. Ford in a 'Story of the anomalous positions in which the characters Two Lovers of Pisa,' published in Tarleton's common to "The Merry Wives of Windsor' 'Newes out of Purgatorie,' 1590. In that and the 'Henry IV.' and 'Henry V.' are story an intrigue is carried on, with no placed, furnish a very strong presumption innocent intentions on the part of the lady, that the comedy was not a continuation of with a young man who makes the old husband the histories. That The Merry Wives of his confidant, as Falstaff makes Brook, and Windsor' was a continuation of 'Henry V.' whose escapes in chests and up chimneys appears to us impossible. Malone does not may have suggested the higher comedy of think it very clear that 'The Merry Wives the buckbasket and the wise woman of of Windsor'“. was written after 'King Henry Brentford. The story is given at length in V.' Nym and Bardolph are both hanged in Malone's edition of our poet. But Shakspere 'King Henry V.,' yet appear in 'The Merry desired to show a butt and a dupe-not a Wives of Windsor.' Falstaff is disgraced in successful gallant; a husband jealous without "The Second Part of King Henry IV.,' and cause not an unhappy old man plotting dies in 'King Henry V.;' but in 'The Merry against his betrayers. He gave the whole Wives of Windsor' he talks as if he were yet affair a ludicrous turn. He made the lover in favour at court." Assuredly these are old, and fat, and avaricious;-betrayed by his very natural objections to the theory that own greediness and vanity into the most the comedy was written after 'Henry V.;' humiliating scrapes, so that his complete but Malone disposes of the difficulty by the degradation was the natural dénouement of summary process of revival. Did ever any the whole adventure, and the progress of the most bungling writer of imagination his shame the proper source of merriment. proceed upon such a principle as is here Could the adroit and witty Falstaff of imputed to the most skilful of dramatists ?— | 'Henry IV.' have been selected by Shakspere

for such an exhibition? In truth the Falstaff | different from other men, but altogether in

of The Merry Wives,' especially as we have him in the first sketch, is not at all adroit, and not very witty. Read the very first scene in which Falstaff appears in this comedy. To Shallow's reproaches he opposes no weapon but impudence, and that not of the sublime kind which so astounds us in the 'Henry IV.' Read further the scene in which he discloses his views upon the Merry Wives to Pistol and Nym. Here Pistol is the wit:

nature. Could he much lower the character of that man? Another and a feebler dramatist might have given us the Falstaff of 'The Merry Wives' as an imitation of the Falstaff of 'Henry IV.;' but Shakspere must have abided by the one Falstaff that he had made after such a wondrous fashion of truth and originality.

And then Justice Shallow-never to be forgotten Justice Shallow!-The Shallow

"Fal. My honest lads, I will tell you what I who will bring Falstaff "before the council"

is not the Shallow who with him "heard the chimes at midnight." The Shallow of the sketch of 'The Merry Wives' has not even Shallow's trick of repetition. In the amended Play this characteristic may be recognised;

"Fal. Sometimes the beam of her view gilded but in the sketch there is not a trace of it. my foot, sometimes my portly belly.

Pist. Then did the sun on dunghill shine." There can be no doubt, however, that, when the comedy was remodelled, which certainly was done after the production of 'Henry IV.,' | the character of Falstaff was much heightened. But still the poet kept him far behind the Falstaff of 'Henry IV.' Falstaff's descriptions, first to Bardolph and then to Brook, of his buckbasket adventure, are amongst the best things in the comedy, and they are very slightly altered from the original sketch. But compare them with any of the racy passages of the Falstaff of the Boar's Head, and after the comparison we feel ourselves in the presence of a being of far lower powers of intellect than the Falstaff "unimitated, unimitable." Is this acknowledged inferiority of the Falstaff of 'The Merry Wives' most easily reconciled with the theory that he was produced before or after the Falstaff of the 'Henry IV.?' That Elizabeth might have suggested 'The Merry Wives,' originally, upon some traditionary tale of Windsorthat it might have been acted in the gallery which she built at Windsor, and which still bears her name-we can understand; but we cannot reconcile the belief that Shakspere produced the Falstaff of 'The Merry Wives' after the Falstaff of 'Henry IV.' with our unbounded confidence in the habitual power of such a poet. To him Falstaff was a thing of reality. He had drawn a man altogether

For example, in the first scene of the finished
play we find Shallow talking somewhat like
the great Shallow, especially about the fallow
greyhound; in the sketch this passage is
altogether wanting. In the sketch he says
to Page, "Though he be a knight, he shall
not think to carry it so away. Master Page,
I will not be wronged." In the finished play
we have, "He hath wronged me; indeed, he
hath; at a word he hath: believe me;
Robert Shallow, esquire, saith he is wronged."
And Bardolph too! Could it be predicated
that the Bardolph of a comedy which was
produced after the 'Henry IV.' would want
those "meteors and exhalations' which
characterize the Bardolph who was a standing
joke to Falstaff and the Prince? Would his
zeal cease to "burn in his nose?" Absolutely,
in the first sketch, there is not the slightest
allusion to that face which ever "blushed
extempore." One mention, indeed, there is
in the complete play of the "red face,” and
one supposed allusion of "Scarlet and John."
The commentators have wished to show that
Bardolph in both copies is called "a tinder-
box" on account of his nose; but this is not
very clear. And then Pistol is not the
magnificent bully of 'The Second Part of
Henry IV.,' and of 'Henry V.' He has
"affectations," as Sir Hugh mentions, and
speaks "in Latin," as Slender has it;—
but he is here literally a tame cheater,"
but not without considerable cleverness.

“Why, then the world's mine oyster" is essentially higher than the obscure bombast of the real Pistol. Of Mistress Quickly we have already spoken as to the circumstances in which she is placed; and these circumstances are so essentially different that we can scarcely recognise any marked similarity of character in the original sketch.

Having, then, seen the great and insuperable difficulties which belong to the theory that 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' was written after the histories, let us consider what difficulties, both of situation and character, present themselves under the other theory, that the comedy was produced before the histories.

First, is it irreconcileable with the tradition referring to Queen Elizabeth? It is not so, if we adopt the tradition as related by Dennis -this comedy was written by Queen Elizabeth's command, and finished in fourteen days. This statement of the matter is plain and simple; because it is disembarrassed of those explanations and inferences which never belong to any popular tradition, but are superadded by ingenious persons who have a theory to establish. We can perfectly understand how 'The Merry Wives of Windsor,' as we have it in the first sketch, might have been produced by Shakspere in a fortnight; --and how such a slight and lively piece, containing many local allusions, and perhaps some delineations of real characters, might have furnished the greatest solace to Elizabeth some seven or eight years before the end of the sixteenth century, after mornings busily employed in talking politics with Leicester, or in translating Boetius in her own private chamber. The manners throughout, and without any disguise, are those of Elizabeth's own time. Leave out the line in the amended play of "the mad Prince and Poins," and the line in the sketch about "the wild Prince killing his father's deer,”—and the whole play (taken apart from the histories) might with much greater propriety be acted with the costume of the age of Elizabeth. It is for this reason, most probably, that we find so little of pure poetry either in the sketch or the finished performance. As Shakspere placed his characters in his own country,

We may believe, therefore, the tradition (without adopting the circumstances which make it difficult of belief), and accept the theory that 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' was written before the 'Henry IV.'

Secondly, is the theory that the comedy was produced before the histories, irreconcileable with the contradictory circumstances which render the other theory so difficult of admission? Assuming that the comedy was written before the histories, it can be read without any violence to our indelible recollections of the situations of the characters in the 'Henry IV.' and 'Henry V.' It must be read with a conviction that, if there be any connection of the action at all, it is a very slight one—and that this action precedes the Henry IV.' by some indefinite period. Then, the Falstaff who in the quiet shades of Windsor did begin to perceive he was “made an ass" had not acquired the experience of the city, for before he knew Hal he “knew nothing;"-then the fair maid Quickly, who afterwards contrived to have a husband and

be

a poor widow without changing her name, knew no higher sphere than the charge of Dr. Caius's laundry and kitchen ;-then Pistol was not an ancient, certainly had not married the quondam Quickly, had not made the dangerous experiment of jesting with Fluellen, and occasionally talked like a reasonable being;-then Shallow had some unexplained business which took him from Glostershire to Windsor, travelled without his man Davy, had not lent a thousand pounds to Sir John Falstaff, and was not quite so silly and so delightful as when he had drunk "too much sack at supper" toasting "all the cavaleroes about London ;"—then, lastly, Bardolph was not "master corporate Bardolph," and certainly Nym and he had not been hanged.

*Ben Jonson, Prologue to 'Every Man in his Humour.'