Sir John. How much is there on 't, o' thy | the person with which he undertook to play a word ?" "How? because he once robbed me before I fell to the trade myself, when that foul villainous guts, that led him to all that roguery, was in his company there, that Falstaff." We have here tolerable evidence that Falstaff was "not the man "Oldcastle in 1600. And yet the following very remarkable letter, or dedication, is written some years after: "To my noble friend Sir Henry Bourchier: "Sir Harry Bourchier, you are descended of noble ancestry, and in the duty of a good man love to hear and see fair reputation preserved from slander and oblivion. Wherefore to you I dedicate this edition of 'Ocleve,' where Sir John Oldcastle appears to have been a man of valour and virtue, and only lost in his own times because he would not bow under the foul superstition of Papistry, from whence, in so great a light of Gospel and learning, that there is not yet a more universal departure, is to me the greatest scorn of men. But of this more in another place, and in preface will you please to hear me that which follows? A young gentle lady of your acquaintance, having read the works of Shakespeare, made me this question: How Sir John Falstaffe, or Fastolf, as it is written in the statute-book of Maudlin College in Oxford, where every day that society were bound to make memory of his soul, could be dead in Harry's the Fifth's time and again live in the time of Harry the Sixth to be banished for cowardice? Whereto I made answer that this was one of those humours and buffoon was not Falstaff, but Sir John Oldcastle; and that, offence being worthily taken by personages descended from his title, as peradventure by many others also who ought to have him in honourable memory, the poet was put to make an ignorant shift of abusing Sir John Falstophe, a man not inferior of virtue, though not so famous in piety as the other, who gave witness unto the trust of our reformation with a constant and resolute martyrdom, unto which he was pursued by the priests, bishops, monks, and friars of those days. Noble sir, this is all my preface. God keep you and me, and all Christian people, from the bloody designs of that cruel religion. "Yours in all observance, "RICH. JAMES." This letter is contained in a manuscript preserved in the Bodleian Library, written by Dr. Richard James, who died in 1638. The manuscript to which it is prefixed is entitled The Legend and Defence of the Noble Knight and Martyr, Sir John Oldcastel,' and has been published by Mr. Halliwell, having been pointed out to him by the Rev. Dr. Bliss *. The "young gentle lady" who, according to this letter, was so well employed in studying Shakspere's historical plays, read them as many other persons read, without any very accurate perception of what essentially belongs to the province of imagination, and of what is literally true. Whatever similarity there may be in the names of Sir John Falstaff and Sir John Fastolf, the young lady might have perceived that the poet had not the slightest intention of proposing the Fastolf of 'Henry VI.' as the Falstaff of ' Henry IV. Assuredly the Falstaff that we last see in the closing scene of 'The Second Part of mistakes for which Plato banished all poets out Henry IV.'-a jester, surfeit-swelled, old, of his commonwealth; that Sir John Falstaff was in those times a valiant soldier, as appears by a book in the Heralds' office dedicated unto him by a herald who had been with him, if I well remember, for the space of 25 years in the French wars; that he seems also to have been a man of learning, because in a library of Oxford I find a book of dedicating churches sent from him for a present unto Bishop Wainfleet, and inscribed with his own name. That in Shakespeare's first show of 'Harry the Fifth,' profane, as the king denounces him—is not the Fastolf that makes his appearance at the battle of Patay, in 'The First Part of Henry VI.,' and is subsequently degraded from being a knight of the Garter for his conduct on that occasion. In these scenes of 'Henry VI.' Shakspere drew an historical character The and represented an historical fact. degradation of Fastolf was in all probability *On the Character of Sir John Falstaff,' 1841. an unjust sentence-as unjust as that pronounced by the worthy writer of the letter in the Bodleian Library, that the wittiest of all Shakspere's creations was "a buffoon," and that he might be confounded with the fighting knight whose chief distinction was the garter on his leg. Fastolf was a respectable personage no doubt in his day, but not "sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff." It appears to us, therefore, that, in the same manner as the "young gentle lady" and Dr. Richard James, somewhat ignorantly as we think, confounded Fastolf and Falstaff, so they erred in a similar way by believing that "in Shakspere's first show of Harry the Fifth the person with which he undertook to play a buffoon was not Falstaff, but Sir John Oldcastle." Fuller, in his 'Worthies,' speaking of Sir John Falstaff, has the same complaint, as we have seen, against "stage-poets." Now, admitting what appears possible, that Shakspere in his 'Henry IV.' originally had the name of Oldcastle where we now find that of Falstaff, is it likely that he could have meant the champion of the Reformation of Wickliff, who was cruelly put to death for heresy in the fourth year. of Henry V., to have been the boon companion of the youthful prince; and who, before the king went to the French wars, died quietly in his bed, "e'en at the turning of the tide ?" And yet there is little doubt that, when Shakspere adopted a name familiar to the stage, he naturally raised up this species of absurd misconception, which had the remarkable fate of being succeeded by a mistake still more absurd, that Falstaff and Fastolf were one and the same. It is, however, extremely probable that there were other plays in which the character of Sir John Oldcastle was presented historically, and falsely presented; that from this circumstance Shakspere saw the necessity of substituting another name for Oldcastle, and of making the declaration "Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man ;" and that the authors of the play before us, 'The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle,' adopted a subject with which the public mind was at that | time familiar, and presented Sir John Oldcastle upon the stage, in a manner that would be agreeable to “personages descended from his title," and to the great body of the people "who ought to have him in honourable memory." Whether the reputation of Oldcastle derived much benefit from their labours remains to be seen. The play opens with a quarrel in the street of Hereford between Lord Herbert, Lord Powis, and their followers; which is put down by the judges, who are holding the assize in the town. The commencement of the conflict, in which blood was shed, is thus described : "Lord Powis detracted from the power of Rome, Affirming Wickliff's doctrine to be true, And Rome's erroneous: hot reply was made By the Lord Herbert; they were traitors all That would maintain it. Powis answered, They were as true, as noble, and as wise As ye; they would defend it with their lives; He nam❜d for instance, sir John Oldcastle, The Lord Cobham: Herbert replied again, He, thou, and all are traitors that so hold. The lie was given, the several factions drawn, And so enrag'd that we could not appease it." The second scene introduces us to the Bishop of Rochester, denouncing Lord Cobham (Oldcastle), as an heretic, to the Duke of Suffolk. The bishop is supported by Sir John of Wrotham, whose zeal is so boisterous as to receive the following rebuke from the Duke : 66 'Oh, but you must not swear; it ill becomes One of your coat to rap out bloody oaths." The king appears, to hear the complaint of the churchman; and he promises to send for Oldcastle "and school him privately." In the third scene we have Lord Cobham and an aged servant, and Lord Powis arrives in disguise, and is concealed by Cobham. In the second act we have a comic scene, amusing enough, but anything but original; a sumner arrives to cite Lord Cobham before the Ecclesiastical Court, and the old servant of the noble reformer makes the officer eat the citation. Nashe tells us in his 'Pierce Pennylesse' that he once saw Robert Greene "make an apparitor eat his citation, wax and all, | play of high poetical power. The interview very handsomely served 'twixt two dishes." between Henry and his faithful friend and We have something like the same incident adherent; the anxiety of the reformer to in the play of the 'Pinner of Wakefield.' vindicate himself from disloyalty, whilst he The scene changes to London, where we have honestly supported his own opinions; the an assembly of rebels, who give out that natural desire of the king to resist innovaOldcastle will be their general. In the next tion, whilst he respected the virtues of the scene, which is probably the best sustained innovator,-points like these would have of the play, we have Henry and Lord Cobham been handled by Shakspere, or one imbued in conference:with his spirit, in a manner that would have "K. Henry. "T is not enough, Lord Cobham, lived and abided in our memories. The to submit ; You must forsake your gross opinion. The bishops find themselves much injured; We for our part are pleased to pardon you, Cob. My gracious lord, unto your majesty, That are in England, alter my belief. Much less their souls, the dear redeemed Of Him that is the ruler of us all : Yet let me counsel you, that might command. And say, my life in any of these points But even the utmost rigour may be shown." The Bishop of Rochester appears, and denounces Cobham for the contempt shown to his citation; the king reproves the bishop, and dismisses Oldcastle in safety. It is evident that the dramatic capabilities of such a scene furnish an occasion for the dis lines that we have quoted, which are the best in the scene, furnish a sufficient proof that the subject was in feeble hands. The third act opens to us the conspiracy of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey. The conspirators meet Lord Cobham. The mode in which they introduce their purpose is spirited and dramatic. Cobham has invited them to his house, and promises them hunters' fare and a hunt. Cambridge thus replies, before he presents the paper which discloses the plot : "Cam. Nay, but the stag which we desire to Lives not in Cowling: if you will consent, A stately beast, that, when his fellows run, hoofs; Aloft he bears his head, and with his breast, Like a huge bulwark, counterchecks the wind: And, when he standeth still, he stretcheth His proud ambitious neck, as if he meant Cam. Not so, sir John; for he is tyrannous, T Cobham then dissembles, and asks "Is not this a train laid to entrap my life?" They offer to swear fidelity; but he requires them only to subscribe the writing. The time and place of mecting are appointed, and they part. Cobham puts the paper in his pocket, and goes off to betray them to the king. The state-morality of the age of Elizabeth might perhaps have made this incident more palátable to an audience of that day than to ourselves; but we doubt whether Shakspere would have put this burthen upon the soul of one whom he wished to represent as a hero and a martyr. We have more scenes of the rebels; followed by the scene which we have already noticed of the parson robbing the king. The same worthy divine is afterwards found in the king's camp, dicing with his majesty; and then the robbery is discovered, and the robber pardoned. The rebels who were in the field, headed by Sir Roger Acton, are routed. The Bishop of Rochester affirms that they were incited by Cobham, who arrives at the moment of the accusation to prove his loyalty by denouncing Scroop, Grey, and Cambridge. The king is satisfied; but subsequently the Bishop of Rochester seizes Cobham, and confines him in the Tower, from which he very soon escapes. With the exception of a scene in which Cambridge and the other conspirators are seized by the king, the whole of the fifth act is occupied by the wanderings of Cobham and his wife, their disguises and their escapes. The following scene is prettily imagined, and gracefully expressed : Extremities admit no better choice, Nor the moist dewy grass thy pillow, nor L. Cob. How can it seem a trouble, having A partner with me in the worst I feel? ease To death itself, should he now seize upon me. [She produces some bread and cheese, and a bottle. Behold, what my foresight hath underta'en, As greater dainties we were wont to taste. Cob. Praise be to Him whose plenty sends both this And all things else our mortal bodies need! Of careful nature or of cunning art, How strong, how beauteous, or how rich it be, But falls in time to ruin. Here, gentle madam, In this one draught I wash my sorrow down. [Drinks." The persecuted pair fall asleep; and, a mur "Cob. Come, madam, happily escaped. Here dered body being found near them, they are let us sit; apprehended as the murderers, and conducted to trial. They are discharged through the discovery of the real murderer, and fly with Lord Powis into Wales. It will be evident from this analysis that "The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle' is entirely deficient in dramatic unity. Shakspere in representing a series of historical events did not of course attempt to sustain that unity of idea which we see so strikingly in his best tragedies and comedies. We have not one great action, but a succession of actions; and yet, through his wonderful development of character, in which a real power of characterization, and his skill in poet would have luxuriated, is made suborgrouping a series of events round one leading | dinate to the hurry of the perplexed though event, we have a principle upon which the monotonous movement of the story. Thomind can determinately rest, and rightly roughly to understand the surpassing power comprehend the whole dramatic movement. of Shakspere in the management of the hisIn the play before us there is no distinct re- torical drama, it might be desirable to comlation between one scene and another. We pare 'King John,' or 'Richard II.,' or forget the connection between Oldcastle and Richard III.,' or 'Henry VIII.,' with this the events in which he is implicated; and, play; but, after all, the things do not admit when he himself appears on the scene, the of comparison. CHAPTER III. THOMAS LORD CROMWELL. THE first edition of this play was published in 1602, under the title of 'The Chronicle History of Thomas Lord Cromwell.' No name or initials of an author appear in the titlepage. In 1613 appeared 'The true Chronicle Historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord Cromwell. As it hath beene sundry times publikely Acted by the Kings Majesties Seruants. Written by W. S.' In 1602 the registers of the Stationers' Company had the entry of 'A Booke called the Lyfe and Deathe of the Lord Cromwell, as yt was lately acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his servants.' It appears, therefore, that the play was originally performed, and continued to be performed, by the company in which Shakspere was a chief proprieter. Beyond the initials W. S. there is no external evidence whatever to attribute the play to the great dramatizer of English history. Schlegel, as we have seen, calls 'Sir John Oldcastle,' and 'Thomas Lord Cromwell,' biographical dramas and models in this species." We have no hesitation in affirming that a biographical drama, especially such a drama as 'Thomas Lord Cromwell,' is essentially undramatic. 'Oldcastle' takes a portion only of the life of its hero; but 'Cromwell' gives us the story of the man from his boyhood to his execution. The resemblance which it bears to any play of Shakspere's is solely in the structure of the title; and that parallel holds good only with |