LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 1, 1916.
CONTENTS.—No. 27.
NOTES:—Falstaff and the Fleet Prison, 1—An English Army List of 1740, 3—Panoramic Surveys of London Streets, 5—Heart-Cherries, 6—Milton's Sonnet on 'Tetrachordon': "Like"—Torpedo: Early Reference—Chronograms in Oxford and Manchester, 7.
QUERIES:—"Oorlog," Dutch for " War "—William Holloway—Fireplaces: A itch Stones, Northumberland—Ford Castle, 8—" Watch House." Ewell—Richard Swift—Theager's Girdle—W. Vaux and N. Ridley—'Northanger Abbey'—Peat and Moss: Healing Properties—St. Madron's Well, 9—"Nihil ardet in inferno," &c.—Prof. F. Grandineau—Sir Patrick Walsh—Family Likeness—Cecilia Maria De Candia—Seats in Church—Rabbit in Britain—'Trusty Servant,' 10—"Sick as a Landrail"—Lost Life of Hugh Peters—"Every Englishman is an Island"—'Waterloo Heroes'—Portrait: Capt. Taylor, 11.
REPLIES:—John Ranby: Fielding, 11—Admiral Haddock—"Bevere"—Mediaeval Latin—Pace-Egging, 12—Gorges Brass—Elizabeth Evelyn—Touching for Luck—Pin-Pricked Lace Patterns—'Vanity Fair, 13—"Laus Deo"—Village Pounds—Kerry Place-Names—"Government for the people," &c., 14—Lord Bacon—Accidental Likenesses—Gavelkind—Archer and Bowman, 15—'Working-Man's Way in the World'—Fieldingiana: Miss H—and—Jennings Property—Herb Tobacco—'Wanted a Governess'—"Agnosco," 16—"How not to do it"—Fact or Fancy?—English Carvings of St. Patrick, 17—"Loke"—"Braid St. Catherine's Tresses"—"Three-a-penny colonels"—Walter Scott: Unpublished Letter—William Mildmay, 18—Latin Contractions—Playing Cards, 19.
NOTES ON BOOKS:—'European Characters in French Drama'—'Sappho in English'—'Influence of Ancient Egyptian Civilization.'
Notes.
FALSTAFF AND THE FLEET PRISON
"I do not see why Falstaff was carried to the Fleet. We have never lost sight of him since his dismission from the King; he has committed no new fault, and therefore incurred no punishment; but the different agitations of fear, anger, and surprise in him and his company made a good scene to the eye of our author, who wanted them no longer on the stage, and was glad to find this method of sweeping them away."
This comment on the last scene of '2 Henry IV.' was written by Dr. Samuel Johnson, and was probably the first of many expressions of perplexity. One of the latest is from the pen of Prof. Bradley, who writes thus:—
"Remembering his father's words about Henry, 'Being incensed he's flint,' and remembering in Henry V. his ruthlessness in killing the prisoners when he is incensed, we may imagine that, after he had left Falstaff, and was no longer influenced by the face of his old companion, he gave way to anger at the indecent familiarity which had provoked a compromising scene on the most ceremonious of occasions, and in the presence alike of court and crowd, and that he sent the Chief Justice back to take vengeance."
Neither explanation sounds convincing, nor do the writers themselves give the impression that they are satisfied with their own reasoning.
The episode is undeniably painful and out of keeping with Prince Hal's attitude to Falstaff, which throughout had been tolerant and kindly. It is true that, as the drama proceeds, he learns more and more of the worthlessness of the old knight's character, and, as his own affairs become increasingly serious, the sparkling wit loses much of its glamour; still his intention had evidently been to dismiss the old man privately and kindly while making sure of his future means of living. The publicity of the dismissal was forced upon him by Falstaff's own action, and Henry seems to be seeking to avoid this when he says to Gascoigne (presumably in an undertone):{{fine block|
My Lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man
upon which the Justice addresses Falstaff, probably in an urgent whisper:—
Have you your wits? Know you what 'tis you speak?
But Falstaff forces the King's attention, and draws from him an answer stern enough to repress the unseemly jests that are rising to his lips. It is a repetition, enhanced by circumstances, of the scene in the tavern '1 Henry IV.,' II. iv. 536).
But that the young King should have aimed a further blow at his old companion is almost incredible. Need one believe it?
The proposition I venture to make is that the supposition is an error, and the scene incorrectly interpreted.
When reading our modern editions of Shakespeare it is certainly difficult to come to any but the generally accepted conclusion. The episode occurs in the fifth scene of the last act of '2 Henry IV.,' and is opened by the stage direction: "Enter King Henry V. and his train, the Lord Chief Justice among them" Falstaff shouts his greeting to the King; the King rebukes him and sentences him to banishment, and then follows the direction: "Exeunt King Henry V. and his train." Of course, as the Lord Chief Justice has just been described as being "among" his train, we are compelled to conclude that he departed with the others, although his royal master has just commanded him to "see performed the tenour" of his word with regard to Falstaff. The conversation between Sir John and Justice Shallow about the borrowed thousand pounds next takes place, occupying about twenty lines, and then occurs a fresh stage direction: "Re-enter John of Lancaster, the Lord Chief Justice, Officers with them."
