XVII.

HENRY IV.

THAT astute founder of the dynasty of the house of Lancaster (Henry IV.) is a practical and memorable example of the axiom, that the wrencher of a civil institution to his own individual aggrandisement had need look out for squalls and tempests; for, as he "soweth the wind, so shall he reap the whirlwind." Henry Bolingbroke had doubtless received egregious injustice at the hands of his cousin, the headlong and headwrong Richard II.; but he himself was as clear a pirate of the crown as if no drop of his grandfather's blood had flowed in his veins. He dethroned his relation, and, perhaps, accomplished—at all events, he has the credit of having connived at his assassination. But from that moment to the day of his death, Henry lived in a perpetual storm with his turbulent barons, with those who upon principle opposed Talking the crown by force his usurping the crown, but most especially with the party exacted stalina that helped him to his "bad eminence;" for no sacrifices of grants and endowments that he could have made would have Softene assuaged their craving of reward for the services they had rendered him. At the close of the tragedy of Richard II., Shakespeare prepares us for the coming discontent and insurrection on the part of the powerful Percy family, by

putting into the mouth of the unfortunate king that prophetical warning to Bolingbroke of the bitter fruit that would ensue from such an alliance; and the opening of the present drama (for the two parts form one drama) reveals to us the usurper in sharp collision with this same Northumberland and his son.

This division of the play-the heroical-is conceived in the very highest spirit of chivalry and martial daring. The terrible valour of Percy, and the flaunting heroism of Prince Harry, are drawn with a fervour and dramatic fitness and art, and contrasted with wonderful brilliancy of effect. This power that Shakespeare possessed was in itself almost miraculous, carried, as he carried it, to such a point of perfection; but when we come to the detail in the characters, to the casual development of remote and subsidiary thoughts, feelings, and actions, it really seems as if he were indued with all the peculiarities of each individual character, or that he had imparted to them all his genius, that they might deliver themselves perfectly.

The two most important, if not the chief actors in the serious scenes of this drama, are Prince Harry and Harry Percy, of whom a remarkable list of references might be made confirmatory of the "individuality" sustained in the portraiture of the two men, from the outset to the close of their career. The former will hereafter come under exami

nation; here, therefore, it were sufficient simply to remark, that as Hal the roysterer, as Prince Harry, and afterwards, in isolated royalty, as Henry V., he appears accurately and consistently, one and the same man.)

The other extraordinary character-the tornado of the north-Harry Percy, most commonly surnamed “Hotspur," is of the same order and genus with the illustrious "representative" character in "King John," the brave, the steadilyloyal, and the grateful Falconbridge. And yet, withal, there

is a palpable distinction to be drawn between the two characters; of the same genus, but of distinct individuality. Both are fiery and impetuous men; both perilously brave; both of noble and generous natures; and here, it should seem, the class-likeness ceases. In the midst of his greatest excitations, Falconbridge always displays presence of mind and deliberation. Hotspur evinces no deficiency in the one quality, but he has neither the deliberation nor the judgment of Falconbridge. Indeed, Hotspur has little judgment, and less de- / liberation. The soliloquies of Falconbridge are pregnant with sound sense and a flaunting sort of mess-room humour. Hotspur has no reflectiveness; he acts, he does not soliloquise. The only time that he discourses in soliloquy he is commenting upon the letter he has received from the party whom he had endeavoured to enlist in the rebellion; and most characteristic of the man are his ejaculations as he comes upon the writer's phlegmatic doubts of the success of their enterprise. It commences in the 3d scene of the 2d Act. The manner as well as the language of Percy are sustained with wonderful consistency of individuality. One of the most prominent features of his personal character is that of perpetual restlessness, to which may be added abundant determination, always combined with rashness and indiscretion. There is one peculiarity in the personal individuality of Hotspur which is quite as carefully detailed as that of any character that Shakespeare has drawn. In the identity of Falconbridge we have no other distinction, no other personal association with him than the general one, of his athletic frame. He is a man of thews and sinews. Speaking of his mother's husband, he says "Sir Robert never holp to make this leg." In Hotspur, on the other hand, we have constant allusion to some peculiarity or other, which makes us feel as though we had known him. First, there is the total lack of repose, already alluded to: he is like a wild beast newly confined. Then, his impetuosity of

putting into the mouth of the unfortunate king that pro phetical warning to Bolingbroke of the bitter fruit that would ensue from such an alliance; and the opening of the present drama (for the two parts form one drama) reveals to us the usurper in sharp collision with this same Northumberland and his son.

This division of the play-the heroical-is conceived in the very highest spirit of chivalry and martial daring The terrible valour of Percy, and the flaunting heroism Prince Harry, are drawn with a fervour and dramatic fit ness and art, and contrasted with wonderful brilliancy effect. This power that Shakespeare possessed was in itself almost miraculous, carried, as he carried it, to such a point of perfection; but when we come to the detail in the characters to the casual development of remote and subsidiary thoughts feelings, and actions, it really seems as if he were indued with all the peculiarities of each individual character, or that had imparted to them all his genius, that they might deliv themselves perfectly.

The two most important, if not the chief actors ir serious scenes of this drama, are Prince Harry and Percy, of whom a remarkable list of references m made confirmatory of the "individuality" sustaine portraiture of the two men, from the outset to the their career. The former will hereafter come und nation; here, therefore, it were sufficient simply that as Hal the roysterer, as Prince Harry, and in isolated royalty, as Henry V., he appears ac consistently, o and the same man.