NOTES. NOTE A. MR. Luder, in his Essay on the Character of Henry, is eminently successful in exposing the exaggeration with which successive historians have adorned their portraits of the prince. But, in truth, after stripping the tale of all its meretricious colouring, enough remains in the report of Elmham, Henry's original biographer, to justify the idea of his having been a Corinthian of the highest order -" He was much given to lasciviousness, and very fond of musical instruments. Passing the bounds of modesty, and burning with the fire of youth, he was eager in the pursuit of Venus as of Mars. When not engaged in military exercises, he also indulged in other excesses which unrestrained youth is apt to fall into." The truth of this picture cannot be shaken by the omission of some circumstances in Henry's life which Elmham ought to have recorded, or by the misrepresentation of others on which he should have been informed more correctly. Such failings are common to all historians; but Elmham, the contemporary of Henry and his father, and who survived both, could not erroneously have made an allegation against the prince of excessive and habitual indulgence in the vices of youth. At the same time, I perfectly agree with Mr. Luder, that if, in the spring of life, "the feathers of the prince's crest played wantonly over his brow, we are not obliged to add ungracefully." But I cannot acquiesce in the opinion, that the historians borrowed from the theatre the idea that the prince's associates were low and degrading. Shakspeare's influence over the historians is entirely out of the question, for he wrote his play after Holinshed and Stowe's works were published. In the supposition that the mischief was produced by "The Famous Victories," the fact is assumed that it was in existence previous to 1573, when Holinshed's Chronicle was printed. Of this there is no proof, and the probabilities appear to me against it. The old play is proved to have existed in 1588; because Tarlton the actor, who was much admired in the clown's part, died in that year. But its date must be carried at least fifteen years higher, before it will yield any support to the hypothesis of Mr. Luder. Internal evidence there is none; conjecture is as available on one side as the other; and the same objection may, perhaps, be urged against the opinion that the probability is greater of the dramatists having copied from the historians, than the historians from the dramatists. NOTE B. THE tradition preserved by Rowe of the part of Falstaff having been originally written under the name of Oldcastle, has given rise to many pages of edifying notes by the commentators, which those will do well to read who deem more information necessary than they will find here on a question so immaterial. Sir John Oldcastle is one of Henry the Fifth's dissolute companions in the anonymous play; and the following line still stands in the First Part of Henry the Fourth, " As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle." Contemporary writers speak of Falstaff as standing in the shoes of Oldcastle, which some critics say is clear proof that Shakspeare substituted the former name for the latter; whilst others assert the legitimate inference to be no more than that Shakspeare's Falstaff had superseded the old buffoon character of Oldcastle in the anonymous play. The Epilogue to the Second Part of Henry the Fourth disclaims the supposition that the dramatic Falstaff is a satire upon the real Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, who died a martyr: no two characters were in fact ever more different; and the objection could never have been raised, without the idea had been suggested by some such leading feature as a similarity of names. Coupling this argument with facts of the still extant punning line in Henry the Fourth, and the occurrence of the name of Oldcastle in "The Famous Victories," I cannot but think that the tradition of Rowe represents the truth. NOTE C. I TRANSFER this play without hesitation from 1594, where it is placed by Malone on very insufficient grounds, to 1597. Shakspeare's obligations to the "Orator" prove the composition of the play to have been subsequent to 1596, and its mention by Meres, that it was previous to 1598. By the present arrangement two plays are assigned to 1597, and two to 1594. Malone gave three plays to 1594, and one to 1597. END OF THE FIRST VOLUME. LONDON: New-Street-Square. |