I

well reasonably concludes, that the stage already had a rude outline of Falstaff under the name of Oldcastle; that Shakespeare at first took this latter name, but changed it to Falstaff before his play was printed; and that in some theaters that name was still retained after the change had been made.

As to The Famous Victories of Henry V, there is no telling with any certainty when or by whom it was written. It is known to have been on the boards as early as 1588, because one of the parts was played by Tarleton, the celebrated comedian, who died that year. And Thomas Nash thus alludes to it in his Pierce Penniless, 1592: "What a glorious thing it is to have Henry the Fifth represented on the stage, leading the French King prisoner, and forcing him and the Dolphin to swear fealty." It was also entered at the Stationers' in 1594; and a play called Harry the Fifth, probably the same one, was performed by Henslowe's company in 1595; and not less than three editions of it were put forth, one in 1598, the others undated. All which tells strongly for its success and popularity. The action of the play extends over the whole space of time occupied by Shakespeare's two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. The Poet can scarce be said to have built upon it or borrowed from it at all, any further than the taking of the above-mentioned names. The play, indeed, is every way a most wretched, worthless performance, being altogether a mass of stupid vulgarity; at once vapid and vile; without the least touch of wit in the comic parts, or of poetry in the tragic; the verse being such only to the eye; Sir John Oldcastle being a dull low-minded profligate, uninformed with the slightest felicity of thought or humor, the prince an irredeemable compound of the ruffian, the blackguard, and the hypocrite, and their companions the fitting seconds of such principals: so that to have drawn upon it for any portion or element of Shakespeare's Henry IV, were much the same as "extracting sunbeams from cucumbers."

Of the First and Second Parts of Henry IV Dr. Johnson

I

rightly remarks,-"These two plays will appear to every reader, who shall peruse them without ambition of critical discoveries, to be so connected that the second is merely a sequel to the first; to be two, only because they are too long to be one.” For which cause it will be most convenient to regard them as one in our introductory matter. In these plays, as elsewhere, Shakespeare's main authority was Holinshed, in whatsoever he has of historical fact. And in this case it is hard to say whether the Poet has shown a more creative or a more learned spirit; there being perhaps no other work to be named, which in the same compass unites so great freedom of invention with so rich a fund of historical matter. Nor is it easy to decide whether there be more even of historical truth in what he created or in what he borrowed; for, as Hallam justly observes, "what he invented is as truly English, as truly historical in the large sense of moral history, as what he read."

Bolingbroke came to the throne in 1399, having first deposed his cousin, Richard II. The chief agents or instruments in this usurpation were the Percys, known in history as Northumberland, Worcester, and Hotspur, three haughty and turbulent noblemen, who afterwards troubled him to keep the crown, as much as they had helped him to get it; the obligations they had laid upon him being indeed just of the kind to beget ingratitude on his part and discontent on theirs. For, whatsoever favors were conferred on them, they regarded as their due; if any were denied, they thought themselves wronged: while he could as little bear to be reminded of their services as they could to have them forgotten.

The rightful heir to the crown, next after Richard, was Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, a lad then about seven years old, whom, together with a younger brother, the king held in a sort of honorable custody, using various arts to prevent any popular discussion of his claims. Early in his reign, one of his leading partisans in Wales, Lord Grey of Ruthven, went to insulting and oppressing Owen Glendower, a nobleman of that country, who had been trained

I

up in the English court, and grown to be an apprentice in the law. Glendower petitioned the king and parliament for redress, and, his petition being rejected with insult, he thereupon took the work of redress into his own hands, and made indiscriminate war on all who abetted the king's cause, aiming at nothing less than the independence of his country. Sir Edmund Mortimer, uncle to the young earl of March, and brother to Hotspur's wife, being sent against him with an army, his forces were utterly broken, himself taken prisoner, and put into close confinement by Glendower, where the king suffered him to lie unransomed, being glad perhaps to be thus rid of him, lest, as the natural guardian of the young earl, he might at some future time undertake to assert the rights of his nephew. Shakespeare, however, following Holinshed, makes the earl himself, who was then engaged at Windsor, to have been Glendower's prisoner; and it is remarkable that Hume has fallen into the same mistake.

Glendower approved himself one of the most bold and enterprising warriors of the age. After Mortimer's defeat and captivity, the king led three powerful armies against him in succession, and was as often baffled by the valor or the policy of the Welchman, who, eluding his approaches when he could not resist them, sought to wear out his patience by a protracted guerilla warfare. At length the elements made war on the king; his forces were stormstricken, blown to pieces by tempests: which bred a general belief that Glendower could "command the devil," and "call spirits from the vast deep." The king finally gave up and retired, leaving Glendower unconquered; but still consoled himself that he yielded not to the arms but to the magic arts of his antagonist.

In the beginning of his reign the king led an army into Scotland, and summoned the Scottish king to appear before him at Edinburgh, and do homage for his crown: but finding that the Scots would neither submit nor fight, and being pressed by famine, he soon gave over the undertaking and withdrew. To retaliate for this invasion, an

I

army of Scots broke into England, where many of them perished, and the rest were taken prisoners; in revenge of which loss the earl Douglas at the head of ten thousand bold Scots burst into England, and advanced as far as Newcastle, spreading terror and havoc around him. Returning home loaded with plunder, they were met by the Percys at Homildon, where after a fierce and bloody battle the Scots were totally routed; Douglas himself being taken prisoner, as were also many other Scottish noblemen, and among them Murdac, earl of Fife, son to the duke of Albany, who was brother to the king, and at that time regent of Scotland. The most distinguished of the English leaders on this occasion was the well-known Hotspur, a man of a most restless, daring, fiery, and impetuous spirit, who first armed when he was twelve years of age; from which time, it is said, his spur was never cold, he being continually at war with the Scots.

The Percys rightly claimed by the laws of war to hold for ransom all the prisoners taken at Homildon, except the earl of Fife, whom, as being a prince of the Scottish blood royal, they were bound to deliver over to their sovereign. The king, however, demanded them all, as he wished to use them in bettering the terms of peace with Scotland. This demand the Percys stoutly refused, unless the king would ransom their kinsman Mortimer; which he as stoutly refused to do, alleging that Mortimer had treacherously suffered himself to be taken. With which fraudulent answer and excuse the Percys were not a little fumed; and so they departed, purposing nothing less than to depose the king, and place the earl of March in his seat. Douglas being still their prisoner, they forthwith took him into their friendship, and at the same time struck a league with Glendower, who also set Mortimer free, and gave him his daughter in marriage. Thus were "that fiend Douglas, that spirit Percy, and that devil Glendower,” all banded together against King Henry.

Nor was the king wanting on his part. Being informed of their doings, he quickly gathered about him such power

as he could, and passed forward with such speed, that he was in sight of them near Shrewsbury before they had any thought of his coming. Northumberland being kept back either by craft or by sudden illness, and Glendower not having yet come up, each side feared that the other might gain strength by delay; so that policy made them hasten an engagement. Composition, however, being first tried, the rebel chiefs set forth a list of their grievances, and Worcester was sent to confer with the king; but when the latter had condescended to all that was reasonable, and seemed to humble himself more than was meet, the former returned to Hotspur, and reported just the contrary of what had been offered. The battle which followed was one of the most obstinate and bloody on record: Hotspur surpassed his former self, and Douglas, emulating him, performed amazing feats of valor, seeking the king all over the field, and slaying several captains arrayed in his garb; until the fall of Hotspur by an unknown hand, and the consequent dispiriting of his men, at last gave the victory to the king. Worcester and Douglas being both taken, the former suffered as a rebel, the other was treated honorably as a prisoner of war. This battle took place in July, 1403, Prince Henry being then sixteen years of age. Young, however, as he was, he did the work of a man: though wounded in the face with an arrow, insomuch that many tried to withdraw him from the field, yet, fearing lest his departure might strike doubt into his men, he stayed with them to the last, never ceasing to fight where the battle was hottest.

Meanwhile Northumberland had set out with an army to join his son: but, hearing of the event at Shrewsbury, he disbanded his forces, and made his submission, alleging that his purpose in arming was to mediate between the parties; which apology the king accepted, thinking that too great severity would tend to pr pagate insurrection. Some two years later the earl entered into a fresh conspiracy with Lord Mowbray, the archbishop of York, and others, and again withheld himself when the issue came, thus leaving his confederates to fight it out alone, after he