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.

IF 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 moral 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 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

first had an outwardly glorious termination, owing to Henry's heroic strength, and the superior valour and ability of the English nation, still it was this very war which subsequently became a source of misery to England, and gave the first and most powerful shock to the House of Lancaster. For the reign of Henry VI.—in times of peace perhaps beneficial- was in no way equal to cope with the consequences of this war, with the renewal of hostilities with France. Such heavy circumstances necessarily exposed its whole weakness, and, therefore, stimulated the somewhat better entitled members of the royal house, as well as the restless barons, to set up their claims. Accordingly the disturbance of the moral organism of history which had commenced under Richard II. runs through the whole reign of Henry IV. and into that of his successor. We everywhere find an important and significant internal connection which continues throughout a whole century, and this is exhibited by Shakspeare with admirable skill.

The war with France forms the most essential substance of the dramatic action in 'Henry V.' We here have the clearest example of the above-mentioned preponderance of the epic element in the historical drama. A war, a great struggle between two chivalrous nations is the poetical subject pre-eminently belonging to the epos; to treat it dramatically is therefore extremely difficult. It is generally imagined that, in history, wars are made by individual rulers according to the caprice of their passions, interests or opinions. These certainly do cooperate and are apparently the direct motives of a war. But, in fact, a war between nations, such as is here depicted, is never simply made; it rather grows up organically like every other historical phenomenon, i.e. it proceeds, by reason of internal necessity, from the course of history, from the position of fundamental political relations, from the spirit of the age, and from the character of the nations. Accordingly if a poet wishes to describe war historically, he must regard it as a necessary part of the organism of history itself. This will naturally be a task much easier to epic narrative than to the action of a drama. And yet Chakspeare has

succeeded in completing the narrative of incidents, not representable in a drama, by introducing the chorus as prologue, hence with the help of purely external, but thoroughly admissible and appropriate means.

The principal historical feature, the description of the spirit of the age with its relations to the past, and the character of the two belligerent nations is brought out in a truly dramatic style, by giving the utmost animation to the action. Henry IV., on his death-bed, had counselled his son to engage

And, in fact, giddiness' and vacillation were the leading features in the character of the age; the reason of this lay not only in the unjust usurpation of Henry IV., which, owing to the close connection existing between the state and its various members, exercised its influence on the barons and people, but also in the progressive development of the state and of the nation itself. The corporative estates of the kingdom, the clergy, knights and burghers, incited by an esprit de corps and by their well-ordered organisation, felt their power and endeavoured to assert it, both against the royal power and against one another. Their disputes among one another would have been of more frequent occurrence had it not been for the fact that, in direct contrast to the French nobility, the English barons generally sided with the commoners, so as mutually to protect their rights against the pretensions of the crown. Each of these several parties endeavoured to promote their own interests and to act with the greatest possible amount of freedom; their active strength naturally strove to find a vigorous sphere of action and would have consumed itself, and thus internally destroyed the organism of the state, had it not succeeded in obtaining vent in an outward direction. In France, on the other hand, the vanity, the excessive arrogance of the court, the nobility and the people desired war in order to realise their proud dream of internal and external superiority; the historical course of the nation's culture required that it should be thoroughly humbled by misery and wretchedness, other

wise it would have decayed prematurely through extravagance and effeminate luxury. Moreover in France also, the organism of the state was broken up into so many separate and independent corporations that it required a great and general interest, a great national disaster to preserve their consciousness of mutual dependence and unity.

All this Shakspeare has intimated in a few but vigorous features. But still more clearly are the characters of the two nations brought forward as the historical motive. The sober, practical patriotism of the English, in the full consciousness of their own strength, could not tolerate the arrogance, the conceit and the frivolity of the French, of which the Dauphin's contumelious embassy to Henry gives so distinct a reflex. The two nations stood opposed to one another like a couple of men who, in spite of the great difference in their natures, both maintain that they are in the right and aim at the same goal; such natures must necessarily come into conflict. The jealousy between France and England had taken root even before the reign of King John and had been called forth by the position of the countries, by the respective forms of their political life as well as by the family connections between the two royal houses. This jealousy, which had spread from the throne down to the lowest classes of the people could not but gradually degenerate into national hatred.Shakspeare, with great discrimination, has not left it wholly unnoticed even in his 'Richard II.' and in 'Henry IV. Thus war became inevitable and was necessarily popular on both sides.

Every national war, owing to its very nature, demands that in the representation of it, scope be given to the cooperation and action of the people. In 'King John,' therefore, the emphasis is more particularly placed on the relation between Church and State, as the general foundation of the historical development; in Richard II.' on the royal dignity, and in 'Henry IV.' on the significance of the vassalry; in the present case, however, prominence is given to the people, in the narrower sense, i.e. its relation. to the state and the other members of the body politic, the manner in which it takes part in the struggle and its opinion of the historical events. Wherever we have a