---

KING HENRY IV.
PART II.

ACT I.

Scene 1. Page 11.

Dr. Johnson had either forgotten the precise meaning of the word rowel, or has made choice of inaccurate language in applying it to the single spiked spur which he had seen in old prints. The former signifies the moveable spiked wheel at the end of a spur, such as was actually used in the time of Henry the Fourth, and long before the other was laid aside. Shakspeare certainly meant the spur of his own time.

Scene 1. Page 13.

Dr. Bentley's proposed substitution of Ucalegon for woe-begone, is a most striking example of the uselessness of learning when unaccompanied with judgment to direct it. Where too had the doctor found that Ucalegon drew Priam's curtain? and, it may be added, where did Shakspeare find that any one did so? It is not very uncommon for our poet to forget his reading, and make events change places. Thus a little further on, he has confounded Althea's firebrand with Hecuba's; and it is not improbable that in the present instance he might have misapplied the vision of Hector to Æneas so finely described in the second book of the Æneid.

Scene 3. Page 46.

Mr. Malone's note on this anachronism would be more perfect if this slight addition were made to it, "and then not duke of Lancaster but of Bedford." Mr. Ritson seems to have traced the source of Shakspeare's error in calling prince John of Lancaster duke of Lancaster, in Stowe's Annales; but he has omitted to remark that even then Shakspeare had forgotten that prince John was not the second son of Henry the Fourth. The blunder of the industrious historian is unaccountable. See the seal of Henry the Fifth as prince of Wales and duke of Lancaster in Sandford's Genealogical history.

ACT II.

Scene 1. Page 49.

The old copy reads long one, and the above alteration has, on the suggestion of Theobald, been very improperly and unnecessarily made. The hostess means to say that a hundred mark is a long mark, that is score, reckoning, for her to bear. The use of mark in the singular number in familiar language admits very well of this equivoque.

Scene 2. Page 64.

Dr. Johnson has properly noticed the error concerning Althea's firebrand. This mythological fable is accurately alluded to in 2 Henry VI. Act I. Scene 1; a circumstance that may perhaps furnish an additional argument, though a slight one, that that play was not written by Shakspeare.

Scene 4. Page 91.

The notes on this expression have left it a matter of doubt whether Pistol is speaking of his sword or of a woman; but the fact is, after all, that the word Hiren was purposely designed by the author to be ambiguous, though used by Pistol with reference only to his sword. When the hostess replies, "There's none such here, do you think I would deny her?" she evidently conceives that he is calling for some wench. Pistol, not regarding her blunder, continues to handle his sword, and in his next speech reads the motto on it—SI FORTUNA ME TORMENTA, SPERATO ME CONTENTA. It is to be observed that most of the ancient swords had inscriptions on them, and there is no doubt that if diligent search were made, the one before us, in a less corrupted state, would be found. In the mean time the reader is presented with the figure of an old French rapier, in the author's possession, on which these lines are engraved: SI FORTUNE ME TOURMENTE L'ESPERANCE ME CONTENTE.

In further illustration, the following story from Wits, fits and fancies, 1614, 4to, is added:—"Haniball Gonsaga being in the low countries overthrowne from his horse by an English captaine, and commanded to yeeld himselfe prisoner: kist his sword and gave it the Englishman saying: Si fortuna me tormenta, il speranza me contenta." Part of this story had already been quoted by Dr. Farmer, but not for a similar purpose.

Scene 4. Page 94.

Mr. Steevens supposes the shove-groat shilling to have been used in the game of shovel-board, by which he seems to infer that the games of shove-groat and shovel-board were the same; but this is apparently a mistake. The former was invented during the reign of Henry the Eighth; for in the statutes of his 33rd year, chap. ix., it is called a new game. It was also known by the several appellations of slide-groat, slide-board, slide-thrift, and slip-thrift, the first of which was probably adopted from the game being originally played with the silver groats of the time, then nearly as large as modern shillings. When the broad shillings of Edward the Sixth were coined, they were substituted for the groats in this game, and used also at that of shovel-board, which seems to have been only a variation of the other on a larger scale. Nothing has occurred to carry it beyond the time of Henry the Eighth; and from the want of such a term as a shovel-groat, it is probably not older than the reign of Edward the Sixth, who first coined the shilling piece. Shovel-board is already too well known to require any description of it in this place; but of the other little seems recorded, or not sufficient to discover the manner in which it was played. Holinshed, or rather Stanihurst, in his history of Ireland, speaking of a mandate for the execution of the Earl of Kildare in the reign of Henry the Eighth, says, that "one night when the lieutenant and he for their disport were playing at slidegrote or shofleboorde, sodainly commeth from the Cardinall (Wolsey) a mandatum to execute Kyldare on the morrow. The earle marking the lieutenant's deepe sigh, By S. Bryde, Lieutenant, quoth he, there is some made game in that scrole; but fall how it will, this throwe is for a huddle." Here the writer has either confounded the two games, or might only mean to state that the Earl was playing at one or the other of them. Rice the puritan, in his Invective against vices, black letter, no date, 12mo, speaks of "paysed [weighed] groates to plaie at slip-thrifte;" and in another place he asks whether God sent Adam into Paradise to play at it. There is a modern game called Justice Jervis, which is supposed by Mr. Strutt, who has described it at large, to bear some resemblance to shove-groat. See his Sports and pastimes, p. 225.

Scene 4. Page 94.

This is manifestly in ridicule of Sackvile's Complaynt of Henry Duke of Buckingham, in The mirour for magistrates:

Scene 4. Page 96.

This music was, in all probability, that belonging to one of those dances called passameasures; and it appears to have afterwards travelled by some means or other to Barbadoes: for Ligon, in his entertaining account of that island, where he was in 1647, tells us that he heard it played there by an old fellow. Ligon, no doubt, remembered it on the stage, and it is very likely to have been the original music of Shakspeare's time; but the above writer has very ignorantly supposed it to have been "a tune in great esteem in Harry the Fourth's dayes."

Scene 4. Page 98.

A flap-dragon is a sport among choice spirits, by putting nuts or raisins into a bowl of brandy, which being set on fire, the nuts are snatched out hastily and swallowed, the party usually burning his mouth and fingers. In this way men formerly drank healths to their mistresses. It is likewise a Christmas gambol among young people, at which, instead of brandy, spirits of wine are used. It is sometimes called slap-dragon and snap-dragon. In The laws of drinking, 1617, 12mo, p. 147, a person is said to be "as familiar as slap-dragons with the Flemming."

Riding the wild mare, is another name for the childish sport of see-saw, or what the French call bascule and balançoire.

Scene 4. Page 100.

Dr. Warburton would most unnecessarily read indiscreet. Mr. Steevens supposes that "by discreet stories is meant what suspicious masters and mistresses of families would call prudential information; i. e. what ought to be known, and yet is disgraceful to the teller." But Poins, of whom Falstaff is speaking, had no masters or mistresses; and if it be recollected with what sort of companions he was likely to associate, Falstaff's meaning will appear to be, that he excites no censure for telling them modest stories; or in plain English, that he tells them nothing but immodest ones.

Scene 4. Page 102.

Notwithstanding this word has excited as much conjecture as almost any other in the language, it will still admit of discussion. Kirtel is pure Saxon, and signifies, generally, a covering, i. e. over all the other garments; in which sense it will always be found to have been [properly] used. In Littelton's Dictionary it is Latinized supparum. See likewise Ducange's Glossary, and a multitude of other authorities. Hence probably covercle. From the circumstance of its occurring as often in the sense of a long as of a short garment, it is more probable that the root of the word should denote that which covers, simply, than something that is short, curtus. In one of the notes, Cotgrave is cited as making kirtle and petticoat synonymous; but this definition is at variance with the line in the comedy of Ignoramus,

It is admitted, however, that this word has been used with great latitude of meaning. Randle Holme makes it the same with the apron.

Scene 4. Page 104.

Mr. Ritson explains this the brother of Poins. But where is the use of asking the prince such a question? It must be remembered that the prince and Poins have just made their appearance, and Falstaff has a question for each. The sense therefore is, "Art not thou Poins, the brother of this bastard?"

ACT III.

Scene 2. Page 135.

This is an anachronism; there were no coins of ten shillings value in the reign of Henry the Fourth. Shakspeare's Harry ten shillings were those of Henry the Seventh or Eighth, but he thought these might do for any other Harry.

Scene 2. Page 140.

The question whether Shallow represented Sir Dagonet at Mile-end green, or Clement's inn, although it has been maintained on either side with great plausibility, must ever remain undecided; but Mr. Malone's acute and ingenious conjecture that Arthur's show was an exhibition of archery, and not an interlude, will no longer admit of any doubt. The truth of both these positions will appear from the following circumstances: In 1682 there was published "A remembrance of the worthy show and shooting by the Duke of Shoreditch and his associates the worshipful citizens of London upon Tuesday the 17th of September 1583, set forth according to the truth thereof to the everlasting honour of the game of shooting in the long bow. By W. M." in p. 40 of which book is this passage: "The prince of famous memory King Henry the Eighth, having red in the chronicles of England, and seen in his own time how armies mixed with good archers have evermore so galled the enemy, that it hath been great cause of the victory, he being one day at Mile-end when prince Arthur and his knights were there shooting did greatly commend the game, and allowed thereof, lauding them to their encouragement." One should be very much inclined to suppose this decisive of the first question, and that these shows were usually held at Mile-end; but this is by no means the case. The work proceeds to state that King Henry the Eighth, keeping at one time a princely court at Windsor, caused sundry matches to be made concerning shooting with the long bow; at which one Barlo, who belonged to his majesty's guard, remaining to shoot, the king said to him, "Win thou all, and thou shalt be duke over all archers." Barlo drew his bow and won the match; whereat the king being pleased, commended him for his good archery; and the man dwelling in Shoreditch, the king named him Duke of Shoreditch. One of the successors to this duke appointed a show on the 17th of September 1583, to be held in Smithfield and other parts of the city, which is here very circumstantially described; and among many other curious particulars it is mentioned that the citizens and inhabitants of Fleetbridge, &c. followed with a show worth beholding of seemly archers; "then the odd devise of Saint Clements parish, which but ten days before had made the same show in their own parish, in setting up the queen's majesties stake in Holborn fields, which stakemaster Knevit, one of the gentlemen of her majesties chamber, gave unto them at his cost and charges; and a gunn worth three pound, made of gold, to be given unto him that best deserved it by shooting in a peece at the mark which was set up on purpose at Saint Jame's wall." This however was not solely a shooting with fire-arms, but also with bows: for in the account of the show itself, which immediately follows, men bearing "shields and shafts" are mentioned, and "a worthy show of archers following." In the continuation of the description of the Smithfield show, mention is made of "the baron Stirrop, whose costly stake will be in memorys after he is dead, now standing at Mile-end;" and again, "And this one thing is worthy of memory: that upon the day of Prince Arthur's shooting, which was five weeks before this show, the duke, willing to beautifie the same in some seemly sort, sent a buck of that season by the marquess Barlo, (the name of this person was kept up long after his decease,) accompanied with many goldsmiths, who coming in satten dublets and chains of gold about their bodies, with horns at their backs, did all the way wind their horns, and presented the same to prince Arthur, who was at his tent, which was at Mile-end-green."

We see therefore that Shakspeare having both these shows in his recollection, has made Shallow, a talkative simpleton, refer to them indistinctly, and that probably by design, and with a due attention to the nature of his character. What Shallow afterwards says about the management of the little quiver fellow's piece, or caliver, will not weigh in either scale; because in all these shows there were musketeers. In that at Smithfield the feryers marched, consisting of "one hundred handsome fellowes with calivers on their necks, all trimly decked with white feathers in their hats." Maister Thomas Smith, who in Mr. Malone's note is said to have personated Prince Arthur, was "chiefe customer to her majesty in the port of London;" and to him Richard Robinson, a translator of several books in the reign of Elizabeth, dedicated his Auncient order, societie and unitie laudable of Prince Arthure and his knightly armory of the round table, with a threefold assertion frendly in favour and furtherance of English archery at this day, 1583, 4to. Such part of this work as regards Prince Arthur is chiefly a translation from the French, being a description of the arms of the knights of the round table; the rest is a panegyric in verse by Robinson himself in praise of archery. It appears from the dedication that King Henry VIII. confirmed by charter to the citizens of London, the "famous order of knightes of prince Arthur's round table or society: like as in his life time when he sawe a good archer in deede, he chose him and ordained such a one for a knight of the same order." Hearne says this book was so scarce in his time that he could never get a copy of it. See preface to Leland's Collectanea, p. liii.

Whatever part Sir Dagonet took in this show would doubtless be borrowed from Mallory's romance of the Mort Arture, which had been compiled in the reign of Henry VII. What there occurs relating to Sir Dagonet was extracted from the excellent and ancient story of Tristan de Leonnois, in which Dagonet is represented as the fool of king Arthur. He is sometimes dressed up in armour and set on to attack the knights of Cornwall, who are uniformly described as cowards. It once happened that a certain knight, who for a particular reason had been called Sir Cotte mal taillée by Sir Kay, king Arthur's seneschal, was, at the instance of Sir Kay, attacked by poor Dagonet; but the latter was very soon made to repent of his rashness and thrown over his horse's crupper. On another occasion Tristan himself, in the disguise of a fool, handles Sir Dagonet very roughly; but he, regardless of these tricks of fortune, is afterwards persuaded to attack Mark the king of Cornwall, who is in reality a coward of the first magnitude. Mark, supposing him to be Lancelot of the lake, runs away, and is pursued by the other; but the persons who had set on Sir Dagonet, becoming apprehensive for the consequences, followed them, as "they would not," says the romance, "for no good, that Sir Dagonet were hurt; for king Arthur loved him passing well, and made him knight with his owne hands." King Mark at length meets with another knight, who, perceiving his cowardice, attacks Dagonet and tumbles him from his horse.

In the romance of Sir Perceval li Gallois, Kay, the seneschal of Arthur, being offended with Dagonet for insinuating that he was not the most valorous of knights, kicks him into the fire. So much for the hero personated by Master Justice Shallow.

Scene 2. Page 146.

To each of the proposed etymologies of Vice in the note there seem to be solid objections.

Hanmer's derivation from the French visdase, is unsupported by any thing like authority. This word occurs in no ancient French writer as a theatrical character, and has only been used by modern ones in the sense of ass or fool, and then probably by corruption; there being good reason to suppose that it was originally a very obscene expression. It is seldom, if ever, that an English term is made up from a French one, unless the thing itself so expressed be likewise borrowed; and it is certain that in the old French moralities and comedies there is no character similar to the Vice.

Mr. Warton says it is an abbreviation of device, because in the old dramatical shows this character was nothing more than a puppet moved by machinery, and then originally called a device. But where is the proof of these assertions, and why should one puppet in particular be termed a device? As to what he states concerning the name of the smith's machine, the answer is, that it is immediately derived from the French vis, a screw, and neither probably from device; for the machine in question is not more a device than many other mechanical contrivances. Mr. Warton has likewise informed us that the vice had appeared as a puppet before he was introduced into the early comedies; but it would be no easy task to maintain such an opinion. Nor is it by any means clear that Hamlet, in calling his uncle a vice, means to compare him to a puppet or factitious image of majesty; but rather simply to a buffoon, or, as he afterwards expresses it, a king of shreds and patches. The puppet shows had, probably, kings as well as vices in their dramas; and Hamlet might as well have called his uncle at once, a puppet king.

What Mr. Steevens has said on this subject in a note to Twelfth night, vol. iv. 146, deserves a little more consideration. He states, but without having favoured us with proof, that the vice was always acted in a mask; herein probably recollecting that of the modern Harlequin, the illegitimate successor to the old vice. But the mask of the former could have nothing to do with that of the latter, if he really wore any. Admitting however that he might, it is improbable that he should take his name from such a circumstance; and even then, it would be unnecessary to resort, with Mr. Steevens, to the French word vis, which, by the bye, never signified a mask, when our own visard, i. e. a covering for the visage, would have suited much better.

A successful investigation of the origin and peculiarities of this singular theatrical personage would be a subject of extreme curiosity. The etymology of the word itself is all that we have here to attend to; and when the vicious qualities annexed to the names of the above character in our old dramas, together with the mischievous nature of his general conduct and deportment, be considered, there will scarcely remain a doubt that the word in question must be taken in its literal and common acceptation. It may be worth while just to state some of these curious appellations, such as shift, ambidexter, sin, fraud, vanity, covetousness, iniquity, prodigality, infidelity, inclination; and many others that are either entirely lost, or still lurk amidst the impenetrable stores of our ancient dramatic compositions.

ACT IV.

Scene 3. Page 174.

"At the king's coming to Durham, the Lord Hastings, Sir John Colevile of the dale, &c., being convicted of the conspiracy, were there beheaded."—Holinshed, p. 530.

The above quotation has not been appositely made by Mr. Steevens. It appears very soon afterwards in this scene that Colevile and his confederates were sent by prince John to York to be beheaded.

It is to be observed that there are two accounts of the termination of the archbishop of York's conspiracy, both of which are given by Holinshed, who likewise states that on the archbishop and the earl marshal's submission to the king and to his son prince John, there present, "their troupes skaled and fledde their wayes, but being pursued, many were taken, many slain, &c., the archbishop and earl marshal were brought to Pomfret to the king, who from thence went to Yorke whyther the prisoners were also brought and there beheaded." It is this account that Shakspeare has followed, but with some variation; for the names of Hastings and Colevile are not mentioned among those who were so beheaded at York.

Mr. Ritson, in an additional note, says it is not clear that Hastings and Colevile were taken prisoners in this battle; meaning, it is presumed, the skirmishes with "the scattered stray" whom prince John had ordered to be pursued, including Hastings and Colevile. It is however quite clear from the testimony of the parliament rolls, that they were taken prisoners in their flight from Topcliffe, on the borders of Galtree forest, where they had made head against the king's army, and were dispersed by prince John and the earl of Westmoreland.

Scene 3. Page 176.

He means to say, "you will seem no more in comparison to me than a gilt twopence does to a coin of real gold." It was the practice to gild the smaller pieces of silver coin in the reign of Elizabeth.

Scene 3. Page 178.

Mr. Ritson justly observes that prince John had no dukedom, and in a former note pointed out a passage in Stowe's annals which had misled Shakspeare. The annalist repeated his error, strange as it is, in the account of the conspiracy. Holinshed always names prince John properly.

ACT V.

Scene 1. Page 207.

This oath has been supposed to refer to the sacred name, and to that service book of the Romish church which in England, before the reformation, was denominated a pie; but it is improbable that a volume with which the common people would scarcely be acquainted, and exclusively intended for the use of the clergy, could have suggested a popular adjuration.

It will, no doubt, be recollected, that in the days of ancient chivalry it was the practice to make solemn vows or engagements for the performance of some considerable enterprise. This ceremony was usually performed during some grand feast or entertainment, at which a roasted peacock or pheasant, being served up by ladies in a dish of gold or silver, was thus presented to each knight, who then made the particular vow which he had chosen, with great solemnity. When this custom had fallen into disuse, the peacock nevertheless continued to be a favourite dish, and was introduced on the table in a pie, the head, with gilded beak, being proudly elevated above the crust, and the splendid tail expanded. Other birds of smaller value were introduced in the same manner, and the recollection of the old peacock vows might occasion the less serious, or even burlesque, imitation of swearing not only by the bird itself but also by the pie; and hence probably the oath by cock and pie, for the use of which no very old authority can be found. The vow to the peacock had even got into the mouths of such as had no pretensions to knighthood. Thus in The merchant's second tale, or the history of Beryn, the host is made to say,

There is an alehouse sign of the cock and magpie, which seems a corruption of the peacock pie. Although the latter still preserved its genuine appellation of the cock and pie, the magic art of modern painters would not fail to produce a metamorphosis like that which we have witnessed on many other occasions.

Scene 1. Page 211.

To curry is the same as to curry favour, to flatter, to please. To curry, in its genuine acceptation, is, as every one knows, to rub or dress leather, in French courroyer, from cuir; and in this sense it was applied to rubbing down a horse's hide, a process that conveys a sensation of pleasure to the animal. The rest of the phrase is corrupt, as will appear from the ancient orthography, which is, to curry favel. Thus in the old story How a merchande dyd hys wyfe betray, we have,

and in the prologue to The merchant's tale of Beryn, in Urry's Chaucer, p. 597,

Now the name of Favel was anciently given to yellow-coloured horses, in like manner as Bayard, Blanchard, and Lyard were to brown, white, or gray. One of Richard the First's horses was so called, as we learn from Robert of Brunne's Chronicle, p. 175:

and see Warton's Hist. of Engl. poetry, vol. i. p. 161. It must be obvious, therefore, that the phrase to curry favel was a metaphorical expression adopted from the stable.

Puttenham informs us that moderation of words tending to flattery, or soothing, or excusing, is expressed by the figure paradiastole, "which therefore," says he, "nothing improperly we call curry favell, as when we make the best of a thing," &c.—Arte of English poesie, p. 154. There is likewise a proverb, "He that will in court dwell, must needes currie fabel;" the meaning of which was not well understood, even in the time of Elizabeth; for Taverner speaking of it says, "Ye shal understand that fabel is an olde Englishe worde, and signified as much as favour doth now a dayes."—Proverbes or adagies gathered out of the Chiliades of Erasmus, 1569, 18mo, fo. 44. Much about this time began the corruption from favel to favour, of which an example may be seen in Forrest's translation of Isocrates, 1580, 4to, fo. 23.

It is necessary to add that favel is also an old word that expresses deceit, from the French favele, fabula; and is so used by Skelton: but this will not invalidate the foregoing etymology. As to Skinner's derivation of curry favour from the French querir faveur,—if an equivalent phrase had existed in the French language, it might at least have been plausible: but there is no instance of cury, or rather curray, the proper word, being used alone in the sense of to seek; nor does it appear from ancient authority that favel ever denoted favour.

Scene 2. Page 217.

In a note on this passage, the anachronism of continuing Gascoine chief justice in the reign of Henry the Fifth has been adverted to. The fault is properly to be ascribed to the author of the old play of Henry the Fifth, from which Shakspeare inadvertently adopted it.

Scene 3. Page 229.

The following addition to the ceremony of dubbing topers knights on their knees in Shakspeare's time, from a contemporary pamphlet, may not be unacceptable: "The divell will suffer no dissensions amongst them untill they have executed his wil in the deepest degree of drinking, and made their sacrifice unto him, and most commonly that is done upon their knees being bare. The prophaneness whereof is most lamentable and detestable, being duely considered by a Christian, to think that that member of the body which is appointed for the service of God is too often abused with the adoration of a harlot, or a base drunkard, as I myself have been (and to my griefe of conscience) may now say have in presence, yea and amongst others, been an actor in the business, when upon our knees, after healthes to many private punkes, a health have been drunke to all the whoores in the world."—Young's England's bane, or the description of drunkennesse, 1617, quarto.

Scene 4. Page 238.

This allusion to the dress of the beadle is further confirmed by the two beadles in blew gownes who are introduced in the fourth act of the old play of Promos and Cassandra, which at the same time furnishes additional illustration of Mr. Steevens's remark on the strumpet's dress, as Polina is there exhibited doing penance in a blue habit.

Scene 5. Page 241.

Dr. Bullein, who speaks much in general commendation of the rush for its utility, informs us, that "rushes that grow upon dry groundes be good to strew in halles, chambers and galleries, to walke upon, defending apparell, as traynes of gownes and kertles from dust. Rushes be olde courtiers, and when they be nothing worth, then they be cast out of the doores; so be many that do treade upon them."—Bulwarke of defence, 1579, fol. 21. The length of the kirtle is here ascertained, and Mr. Malone's account of it in this respect fully confirmed. See his note in Act II. Scene 4, of this play.

Scene 5. Page 248.

Every body will agree with Dr. Johnson in the impropriety of Falstaff's cruel and unnecessary commitment to prison. The king had already given him a fit admonition as to his future conduct, and banished him to a proper distance from the court. We must suppose therefore that the chief justice had far exceeded his royal master's commands on this occasion, or that the king had repented of his lenity. The latter circumstance would indeed augur but unfavourably of the sovereign's future regard to justice; for had he not himself been a partaker, and consequently an encourager, of Falstaff's excesses? On the stage this scene may very well be spared. The audience will be better pleased at the poor knight's retiring with his companions under the impression that the king's behaviour to him has been necessarily disguised. No one will wish to see him punished.