[ " ] 



tjiat his vindication here could only arife from a laudable zeal 

 in the writer of queftioning every thing which might refledt 

 on the charader of his hero. 



The fcene where the tranfa£lion at Gadfhill is canvaffed is 

 intimately connedted with the former, and ferves to throw much 

 light upon it. The writer affirms, " that it is clearly the lies 

 " only, not the cowardice of FalftafF, which are here detedled : 

 " lies, to which, what there may be of cowardice is ijicidental 

 " only, improving indeed the jeft, but by no means the real 

 " bufinefs of the fccne." This is a kind of abftradion which I 

 mufl own myfelf incapable of making ; neither do I well con- 

 ceive how the writer has done fo ; for thefc lies could in fa£t 

 have had no exiftence, unlefs we imagine fome foundation 

 upon which they were raifed ; fo that, as well in the order of 

 our ideas as degree of importance, the cowardice of FalftafF at 

 Gadfliill is not incidental, but the primary and cffential im- 

 preffion. And this, or fomething very like it, I think the writer 

 admits in the following pafTage : " let us only fuppofe," fays he, 

 " that FalftafF was a man of natural courage, though in all 

 " refpeds unprincipled ; but that he was furprifed in one finglc 

 " inftancc into an ad of real terror ; which, inftcad of excufing 

 " upon circumftances, he endeavours to cover by lies and brag- 

 " gadocio; and that thefe lies become thereupon the fubjed, in 

 " this place, of detedion." Here the ad of real terror is granted j 

 FalftafF appears before us in this fcene under the weight of the 

 charge, and put \]pon his vindication in the beft manner he is 

 able. His defence, indeed, amply difplays another part of his 

 eharader, already foretold by Poins^ yet, furcly, without dif- 



charging 



