[ 



] 



confillent with his own Falftafl' as with mine. Some things 

 prove a great deal too much, and Co lofe their credibiHty. John 

 of Gaunt himfelf could not do more than this ; and v/ho can 

 believe an accotint of fuch romantic bravery in Sir John FalflafF, 

 in a man who the moment after counterfeits death to efcape a 

 fingle adverfary ? It cannot be. Shakefpear never could have 

 committed fo great a breach of decorum ; for though not the 

 flrifleft obferver of it in all cafes, yet no dramatic poet ever 

 obferved it more perfectly in charader. I fhould therefore rather 

 adopt the idea of his having ordered his ragamuffins upon this 

 dangerous fervice : or if this be thought a flraining of the words 

 too far, that having led them, he there left them. There is 

 certainly no reafon to think that at the time of his making this 

 foliloquy, he is at. or near the fcene of action; the reverfe is 

 obvioufly to be inferred : either therefore he never was upon the 

 fpot, or he had, agreeably to his conduit on every occafion of 

 danger, prudently confulted for his fafety by a timely rt:treat. 

 Does the ingenious critic really think that FalftafF had held his 

 poft till he had witneffed the fail in queftion .>" The improbability 

 of it is too grofs, and he feems aware of this when he admits 

 that FalrtaiF might have exaggerated the danger. Under this 

 idea he fets about correfling FalflifFs account, and reduces the 

 number to two- thirds of the whole. I fty nothing at prefect of 

 his thus accommodating fads, related in foliloquy, to his own 

 fanciful theory, though he denies this liberty to others. We might 

 fay to him, " the fad cannot be queflioned." But in truth I 

 can as eafily believe one account as the other. If Falftaft"'s dif- 

 cretion had flept on its poft till two- thirds of his men were 

 killed, it might have remained fo till three onl^ furvived, or in 



my 



