Part 22

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.

FAL. ... this _Vice's_ dagger----

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.

COLE. I am a knight, sir; and my name is _Colevile of the dale_.

"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.

FAL. ... if you do not all shew like _gilt two-pences_ to me----

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.

FAL. ... 'twere better than your _dukedom_.

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.

SHAL. By _cock and pye_, sir, you shall not away to night.

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,

"_I make a vowe to the pecock_ there shal wake a foul mist."

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.

FAL. ... if to his men, I would _curry_ with Master Shallow----

_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,

"There sche _currayed favell_ well;"

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

"As though he had lerned _cury favel_ of some old frere."

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:

"Sithen at Japhet [Jaffa] was slayn _fauvelle_ his stede, The romance tellis grete pas ther of his douhty dede:"

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.

CH. JUST. And struck me in my very seat of justice.

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.

SIL. And dub me knight.

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.

DOL. You _blue-bottle_ rogue.

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.

1. GROOM. More rushes, more rushes.

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.

CH. JUST. Go, carry Sir John Falstaff to the Fleet.

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_.

KING HENRY V.

Page 263.

CHORUS. O for a muse of fire, &c.

"This," says Dr. Warburton, "goes upon the notion of the Peripatetic system, which imagines several heavens, one above another; the last and highest of which was one of fire." We have here one of the very best specimens of the doctor's flights of fancy. Shakspeare, in all probability, knew nothing of the Peripatetic philosophy; he simply wishes for poetic fire, and a due portion of inventive genius. The other explanation by Dr. Johnson seems likewise too refined.

Page 264.

CHORUS. ... Can this cock-pit hold The vasty fields of France? or may we cram Within this wooden O, the very casques That did affright the air at Agincourt?

Dr. Johnson has elsewhere remarked that Shakspeare was fully sensible of the absurdity of showing battles on the theatre, which, says he, is never done but tragedy becomes a farce. The whole of this chorus receives considerable illustration from a passage in Sir Philip Sidney's _Defence of poesie_, where, speaking of the inartificial management of time and place in the theatres of his time, he thus proceeds: "where you shall have Asia of the one side and Affricke of the other, and so many other under-kingdoms, that the player when he comes in, must ever begin with telling where hee is, or else the tale will not be conceived. Now shall you have three ladies walke to gather flowers, and then we must beleeve the stage to bee a garden. By and by we heare newes of shipwracke in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a rocke. Upon the backe of that comes out a hidious monster with fire and smoke, and then the miserable beholders are bound to take it for a cave: _while in the meane time two armies flie in, represented with foure swordes and bucklers, and then what hard hart will not receive it for a pitched field?_ Now of time they are much more liberal. For ordinarie it is that two young princes fall in love, and after many traverses she is got with child, delivered of a faire boy; he is lost, groweth a man, falleth in love, and is ready to get another child; and all this in two houres space: which how absurd it is in sence, even sence may imagine: and art hath taught, and all ancient examples justified, and at this day the ordinary players in Italie will not erre in." These remarks might with great propriety be applied to the play before us, to the _Winter's tale_, to _Pericles_, and some others of Shakspeare's dramas. In France, the contemporary playwrights were commonly more observant of the unities, though many charges to the contrary might be brought against them.

ACT I.

SCENE 2. Page 277.

K. HEN. Therefore take heed how you impawn _our_ person, How you awake the sleeping sword of war.