tent with laughter; and that yet, without Courage, he
could not have been respectable at all;--that it required nothing less than
the union of ability and Courage to support his other more accidental
qualities with any tolerable coherence. Courage and Ability are first
principles of Character, and not to be destroyed whilst the united frame
of body and mind continues whole and unimpaired; they are the pillars on
which he stands firm in spight of all his vices and disgraces;--but if we
should take Courage away, and reckon Cowardice among his other defects,
all the intelligence and wit in the world could not support him through a
single Play.
The effect of taking away the influence of this quality upon the manners
of a character, tho' the quality and the influence be assumed only, is
evident in the cases of _Parolles_ and _Bobadil_. _Parolles_, at least,
did not seem to want wit; but both these characters are reduced almost to
non-entity, and, after their disgraces, walk only thro' a scene or two,
the mere mockery of their former existence. _Parolles_ was so changed,
that neither the _fool_, nor the old lord _Le-feu_, could readily
recollect his person; and his wit seemed to be annihilated with his
Courage.
Let it not be here objected that _Falstaff_ is universally considered as a
Coward;--we do indeed call him so; but that is nothing, if the character
itself does not act from any consciousness of this kind, and if our
Feelings take his part, and revolt against our understanding.
As to the arts by which _Shakespeare_ has contrived to obscure the vices
of _Falstaff_, they are such as, being subservient only to the mirth of
the Play, I do not feel myself obliged to detail.
But it may be well worth our curiosity to inquire into the composition of
_Falstaff_'s character.--Every man we may observe has two characters; that
is, every man may be seen externally, and from without;--or a section may
be made of him, and he may be illuminated from within.
Of the external character of _Falstaff_, we can scarcely be said to have
any steady view. _Jack Falstaff_ we are familiar with, but _Sir John_ was
better known, it seems, _to the rest of Europe_, than to his intimate
companions; yet we have so many glimpses of him, and he is opened to us
occasionally in such various points of view, that we cannot be mistaken in
describing him as a man of birth and fashion, bred up in all the learning
and accomplishments of the times;--of ab
|