his servants. However, this conjectural glutton." In our opinion, there was either evidence is quite unnecessary. Henslowe, the head of the Lord Admiral's company, as we learn by his diary, on the 16th of October, 1599, paid "for The first part of the Lyfe of Sir Jhon Ouldcastell, and in earnest of the Second Pte, for the use of the company, ten pound;" and the money was received by "Thomas Downton" "to pay Mr. Monday, Mr. Drayton, Mr. Wilson, and Hathaway." We might here dismiss the question of the authorship of this play, did it not furnish a very curious example of the imperfect manner in which it was attempted to imitate the excellence and to rival the popularity of Shakspere's best historical plays at the time of their original production. It is not the least curious also of the circumstances connected with 'The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle,' that, whilst the bookseller affixed the name of Shakspere to the performance, it has been supposed that the Falstaff of his 'Henry IV.' was pointed at in the following prologue : "The doubtful title, gentlemen, prefix'd Upon the argument we have in hand, another play besides 'The Famous Victories' in which the name of Oldcastle was introduced, or the remarks of contemporary writers applied to Shakspere's Falstaff, who had originally borne the name of Oldcastle. The following passage is from Fuller's 'Church History:-" Stage-poets have themselves been very bold with, and others very merry at, the memory of Sir John Oldcastle, whom they have fancied a boon companion, a jovial royster, and a coward to boot. The best is, Sir John Falstaff hath relieved the memory of Sir John Oldcastle, and of late is substituted buffoon in his place." This description of Fuller cannot apply to the Sir John Oldcastle of 'The Famous Victories.' The dull dog of that play is neither a jovial companion nor a coward to boot. Whether or not Falstaff was originally called Oldcastle, Shakspere was, after the character was fairly established as Falstaff, anxious to vindicate himself from the charge that he had attempted to represent the Oldcastle of history. In the epilogue to 'The Second Part of Henry IV.' we find this passage :— "For anything I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat, unless already he be killed with your hard opinions; for Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man." The Second Part of Henry IV.,' the epilogue of which contains this passage, was entered in the Stationers' registers in 1600, and was published in that year. When The First Part of Sir John Oldcastle' was published in the same year, Falstaff is distinctly recognised as the companion of Prince Henry. In that play Henry V. is represented as robbed by the parson of Wrotham, a very queer hedgeThe line in the prologue which we have priest indeed, bearing the name of Sir John, just quoted "Since forg'd invention former time defac'd," might appear to point to an earlier period of the stage than that in which Shakspere's 'Henry IV.' was produced. Indeed, the old play of 'The Famous Victories' contains the character of Sir John Oldcastle. He is a low, ruffianly sort of fellow, who may be called "an aged counsellor to youthful sin;" but he is not represented as "a pampered as if in rivalry of another Sir John; and the following dialogue takes place : "Sir John. Sirrah, no more ado; come, come, cannot stand all day. give me the money you have. Despatch; I here it is. another. K. Henry. Well, if thou wilt needs have it, Just the proverb, one thief robs Where the devil are all my old thieves? Falstaff, that villain, is so fat, he cannot get on his horse; but methinks Poins and Peto should be stirring hereabouts. Sir John. How much is there on 't, o' thy the person with which he undertook to play a word ?" Falstaff is again mentioned in the same scene with the priest, who asserts that the king was once a thief; and in answer to the question "How canst thou tell?" replies, "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 mistakes for which Plato banished all poets out 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,' 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 Henry IV.'-a jester, surfeit-swelled, old, 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. 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 an unjust sentence-as unjust as that pro- | time familiar, and presented Sir John Oldnounced by the worthy writer of the letter castle upon the stage, in a manner that would in the Bodleian Library, that the wittiest of be agreeable to "personages descended from all Shakspere's creations was "a buffoon," his title," and to the great body of the and that he might be confounded with the people "who ought to have him in honourfighting knight whose chief distinction was able memory." Whether the reputation of the garter on his leg. Fastolf was a respect- Oldcastle derived much benefit from their able personage no doubt in his day, but not labours remains to be seen. "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 One of your coat to rap out bloody oaths." by a mistake still more absurd, that Falstaff The king appears, to hear the complaint of and Fastolf were one and the same. It is, the churchman; and he promises to send for however, extremely probable that there were Oldcastle "and school him privately." In other plays in which the character of Sir the third scene we have Lord Cobham and John Oldcastle was presented historically, an aged servant, and Lord Powis arrives in and falsely presented; that from this cir- disguise, and is concealed by Cobham. In the cumstance Shakspere saw the necessity of second act we have a comic scene, amusing substituting another name for Oldcastle, and enough, but anything but original; a sumner of making the declaration "Oldcastle died a arrives to cite Lord Cobham before the Ecclemartyr, and this is not the man ;" and that siastical Court, and the old servant of the the authors of the play before us, 'The First noble reformer makes the officer eat the citaPart of Sir John Oldcastle,' adopted a sub- tion. Nashe tells us in his 'Pierce Pennyject with which the public mind was at that | lesse' that he once saw Robert Greene "make Affirming Wickliff's doctrine to be true, "Oh, but you must not swear; it ill becomes an apparitor eat his citation, wax and all, | play of high poetical power. The interview very handsomely served 'twixt two dishes." We have something like the same incident in the play of the 'Pinner of Wakefield.' The scene changes to London, where we have an assembly of rebels, who give out that Oldcastle will be their general. In the next scene, which is probably the best sustained of the play, we have Henry and Lord Cobham in conference: | between Henry and his faithful friend and adherent; the anxiety of the reformer to vindicate himself from disloyalty, whilst he honestly supported his own opinions; the natural desire of the king to resist innovation, whilst he respected the virtues of the innovator,-points like these would have been handled by Shakspere, or one imbued 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. 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 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 palatable 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, And, were it not for thee, say froward time 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. Behold, what my foresight hath underta'en, As greater dainties we were wont to taste. Cob. Praise be to Him whose plenty sends 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 |