The striving for outward power, for possessions and dominion is, in reality, no less immoral and material than Falstaff's low theory of happiness, and his thirst for money and estates in order to make practical use of them. His boastful, blustering bravery is an excellent parody on the character of young Hotspur, on the proud Douglas, and on the vain and grandiloquent Glendower; his comic cautiousness, his rambling observations on the nature of warfare and politics, and his thoughts about life and death, and about a future existence, are as excellent a parody on the chief features in the character of old Northumberland, Worcester and the Bishop of York; lastly, his great talent in dissembling, the appearance of virtue which he contrives to assume, the cunning with which he invariably gets himself out of embarrassments, form a parody on the personal character of the King whom he represents in so amusing a manner in the first part. His boon companions, the cowardly rascals Peto and Gadshill, the bully Pistol with his borrowed pathetic phrases, the ever-thirsty but never sober Bardolph, the shrewd and witty page with his depraved innocence, the intriguing, and servile Poins-all these characters which in themselves are indispensable to give the parody a dramatic form, and to prevent the poet's intention being observed, are but the reflexes of Falstaff's individuality and serve as foils to his character. In addition to these

we have the Hostess and Doll Tear-Sheet, the two justices Shallow and Silence, Falstaff's recruits and some other subordinate personages, to fill up and to round off the picture, and also to preserve its connection with the other half of the whole.

The comedy, thus equipped, everywhere reflects the historical action in all its essential elements, and Falstaff's humorous personality, the inexhaustible irony with which he ridicules all around him and himself in particular, floats above the historical picture as its parodied image, explaining the significance of the actions and of the events represented. In the first part it is the campaign of Falstaff and his fellows against the travelling merchants, their victory over the latter, and their discomfiture by Poins and the Prince that is the focus of the wit, but

likewise the focus of the withering travesty on the hollow, immoral dispute which, on the one hand, turns upon robbery, and on the other upon the defence of unlawfully acquired property. The directly following scene in the tavern at Eastcheap, where Falstaff, personifying the King, reproaches the Prince about his mode of life, gives a witty and excellent description of the heads of the rebellion as well as of Henry IV. himself, and more especially exhibits the latter's parade of his royal dignity and the same parade in the arrogant, inflated nature of the barons. The scenes at the close, where Falstaff appears at the council of war, and as the conqueror of l'ercy, are direct parodies on the war itself. In the second part, on the other hand, the trick by which the Prince and Poins mystify the old sinner, and catch him fibbing and prevaricating, parodies the manner in which Falstaff, assisted by his recruits, carries on his deceptive game in deceiving the two justices, by the semblance of great authority and influence which he manages to assume. Lastly, the way he evades the accusation of the Hostess and the sentence of the worthy but rigidly moral judge, until finally all his hopes and plans are disappointed by Henry's conduct after his accession-all this again parodies what is called policy, i.e. the common cunning of political prudence which forms the mainspring of the historical action in this part. On the other hand the army of cripples whom Falstaff leads into the field, and his very appearance as a military officer is a delightful satire on the game of war which had become utterly insignificant.

Thus the comic parts illustrate clearly and fully the leading thought of the whole play in both its parts. In the first we are shown that strife and war, in the second that so-called state actions (even though they treat of outwardly important interests, of crowns and principalities) are wholly unable to give history any real historical value; further that this value can be only of an ideal, ethical nature, and that, accordingly, with the rupture of the moral foundation, the organic equilibrium of political life itself is broken; that the course of history (even though outwardly and apparently well-regulated

and entering other paths) is nevertheless internally disturbed and will not admit of the state enjoying rest and peace, till it has again recovered its necessary equili brium.

It is evident, therefore, that the often-repeated complaint that Shakspeare's play is wanting in unity and inward finish is as unfounded as many other objections raised against the poet. But even the demand of having the so-called unity of interest represented in a single and principal figure (a demand, at all events, not applicable to an historical play) may, in a certain sense, be considered as here fulfilled; for Prince Henry can quite well be regarded as a centre of this kind, if the two dramas are regarded by themselves apart from their connection with Richard II.' In disposition and behaviour Prince Henry forms not only the organic contrast to his father, as well as to Percy and the leaders of the rebellion, but he is also the living, separating and uniting link between the comic parts and the serious historical action. His is a character deserving of the careful development which Shakspeare has bestowed upon him throughout the three dramas, and this Hazlitt could not have misapprehended but for the narrowness of his political principles and his unprincipled hatred of monarchy. In fact, in Prince Henry are concentrated all the interests of the history represented; the question is about his title no less than about the King's title; it is for him that his father endures all the cares and troubles of his position; against him that the rebellious barons contend; his victory over Percy decides the course of the whole war; it is to his person that Falstaff and his followers attach themselves, and one word from his lips destroys them at a blow. Hazlitt, Fr. Horn, and others have found this last cir cumstance hard and unjust, and certainly the poor knight thus suddenly cast out of his paradise does excite some pity, which, however, he himself crushes in the bud by the manner in which he shakes off the bitter experience by a witticism; in rising above it he forces us to grant him a certain amount of respect in consideration of his self-control and imperturbable good humour which rises above all the vicissitudes of fortune. And yet his fate could

positively not have been otherwise, whether regarded from his own or from Henry's point of view. The latter was indeed in no way a hero of virtue; Shakspeare did not wish to represent him as such; on the contrary, it was a decided aberration in Henry's noble nature to enter into so intimate a relation not only with Falstaff himself, but with the latter's companions. This unnatural relation could be broken only by force, the obtrusive rabble had to be driven off with violence and Falstaff was expelled on account of his connection with them. As frequently happens, so also in the present case, the first wrong could be repaired only by a wrong, by inconsistency and unfairness. Nevertheless it cannot be doubted, except by those who judge right and justice merely according to their own momentary feelings, that Falstaff only meets with a just punishment. It would have been the greatest historical as well as poetical mistake to have allowed him, in spite of the wealth of his mind, his wit and humour, finally to obtain honour and authority through his in every respect worthless life.

CHAPTER VIII.

HENRY V.

Ir the character of Henry V. is looked upon as the central figure of the play of 'Henry IV.' all the more may the following drama, which bears his name, be regarded as the mere continuation of the preceding one. In fact the piece is but the directly succeeding third act of the great tragedy. The outward point of rest which the history of the royal dynasty had gained towards the end of the reign of Henry IV. does not prove lasting till the reign of his successor, and is even then but of short duration. Henry the Fifth's title to the throne is disputed by no one; he is protected against this by his inoral power, his manly energy and his truly royal mind. No one ought to venture to set up a mere outward claim, in opposition to such perfect inward right to the throne. And yet the internal restlessness of history, spoken of above is exhibited here also, only in a different manner and in a different direction. In the first place the life of the just and gracious Prince is threatened by the treacherous and murderous designs of a few ambitious and rapacious barons; the blackest ingratitude and faithlessness embitter his position as King and disappoint his fairest hopes. The representation of the conspiracy of the Earl of Cambridge, Grey and Scroop, which is interwoven as an episode, explains the significance of the whole. Accordingly Henry V., following his father's advice as well as his own judgment, has to endeavour to withdraw the attention of the people and the nobles from the internal affairs of the state. Even though the war with France originated in reality from another and deeper reason, still Henry's own personal object was his chief motive in beginning the campaign so hurriedly and almost without preparation. And although the war at