10 
the term ‘ gentleman’ as the word was 
received in its better days, yet he had 
many which were not consistent with 
mere ribaldry and buffoonery. If we 
have an eye imerely to his imperfections, 
which are no criterion of rank in society, 
our opinion of him will be mean and 
inadequate. He is represented as ‘a 
captain of foot,” intimate with men of 
the first title and authority, and, as may 
be inferred from the scenes into which 
he is introduced, as likewise from his be- 
haviour to the lord chief justice, could 
value himself as highly as any of his 
friends, In the character of companion 
to the prince, however unworthy, he 
must in the eyes of the world have been 
thought deserving of some attention, 
I will not say respect; for it is in vain 
that we look for any virtues in him, cal- 
culated to inspire us with any thing like 
reverence. Those who might despise 
them both for their vices, must remem- 
ber that Hal was heir to the crown, and 
that Falstaff was made companion to the 
future hero of Agincourt. The polite 
attentions of master Shallow to his old 
acquaintance, sir John, which may te 
accounted for without any uncommon 
Sagacity, were returned in a manner con- 
sistent with the avarice of the latter, that 
would now be denominated by the rude 
name of ‘swindling.’ Yet the shadow 
of worthy affection existed in sir John, 
as we see throughout his conduct. He 
ascribes his fondness for Poins to a singu- 
lar cause: I am_ bewitched with the 
rogue’s company. If the rascal has not 
given me medicines to make me love 
him, Vil be hanged; it could not be 
else.*” But the affection of the prince 
for sir John Falstaff is more easily 
explained, and though manifest in the 
whole intercourse between them, is more 
feelingly described by the poet in the 
prince’s lamentation for his loss, when 
he views him extended for dead in the 
fieldvof battle: “ What! old acquaint- 
ance, could not all this flesh keep in a 
little life? Poor Jack! Farewell! I could 
have better spared a betier man! Oh! 
I shovid have a heavy miss of thee, if I 
were much in love with vanity.” 
* This, and a number of other characteristic 
and unobjectionable passages, are injudici- 
ously omitted in the play as represented on 
our theatres. I fancy these omissions were 
made by Colley Cibber ; if so, they do him as 
much credit for poetical feeling as his own 
tragedies. 
_ Shakespeare’s Character of Sir John Falstaff. [Aug. t, 
Indeed, we must think more humbly 
of the. prince’s judgment and good 
sense than we are justified in doing from: 
his known character, if we suppose that 
he did not observe some amiable fea- 
tures in the man with whom the poet 
makes him spend the greater part of his 
time, and for whom he procured @ 
“ charge of foot.” Similarity, in some 
degree, of dispositions might be thought 
a sufficient cause; but where there was 
not a single praiseworthy object of 
mutual affection, the poet would not so 
have erred against human nature as to 
have represented a friendship. The 
inconsistency of the prince’s future con- 
duct to him, while it reflects somewhat 
of ingratitude on his poetical memory, 
was certainly necessary, and tended to 
the retrieving of his character in the 
public mind. 
But to solve all difficulties on this _ 
head, it will be requisite only to selecha =~ 
single trait in this motley personage, ~ 
which will ever awaken a partiality for 
him in every audience. The poet, to 
counterbalance his thirst of gold, and 
his more serious vices, has given him an 
insinuating air of frankness and simpli- 
city of manners. It may be observed 
that in the first scene of his appearance, 
you see a man from whom every subse- 
quent part of his history might be ex- 
pected. The nature displayed in this 
is too much for the nerves of the andi- 
ence. They are delighted to see what 
they seem to themselves to have known 
in common life, and to find. their 
acquaintance precisely what they ima- 
gined him to be. Falstaff’s character is 
seen at once; he conceals no darker fea- 
tures than those exhibited on his first 
introduction; and however reprehensible 
in his vices, he seems walling to trust - 
them to the mercy of his frail audience. - 
This is natural ; but it is no extenuation 
of crime. The prepossession in favor 
of such men arises from the love of truth 
and sincerity implanted in us by nature, 
(not to mention the secret tribute paid 
to our vanity and self-love on such occa 
sions), and every one, at some period er 
other of his life, must have felt it extort-~ 
ed from him. Such a man is Falstaff. 
Superlatively vicious and reprobate, 
he never appears without exposing some 
darling excess or evil propensity.’ Yet, 
in spite of all this, his habits savour so ~ 
much of every-day profligacy, and his 
promises of reform and repentance- are 
so frequent, that we cannot help feeling, 
again 
” 
Ay 
%, 
Pa ae 
Ah es 
ieee 
