about 1588 in The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth. Shakespeare adopted the name in Henry IV. This gave offence to the Cobham family, and Shakespeare had to find another name for his knight. Nevertheless, traces of the original name are to be found in the text of Henry IV. In the Epilogue to the Second Part of Henry IV. occurs a disavowal of any intention to malign the real Sir John Oldcastle. Speaking of "hard opinions" of Falstaff, Shakespeare says: “Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man”. In the First Part of Henry IV. I. ii. 43, the Prince's words, "As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle," would have more point if the name of the knight were Oldcastle. II. ii. 105, the line

Away, good Ned. Falstaff sweats to death,

In

though not necessarily unmetrical, becomes regular if "Oldcastle" be substituted for "Falstaff". Unfortunately there is

no other instance in the First Part of Henry IV. of the name "Falstaff" in verse context. In the Second Part it occurs four times in verse, but the substitution had probably taken place before the date of the composition of this play. True, in the 1600 Quarto of the Second Part, Old. is prefixed to one of Falstaff's speeches; but, as Professor Dowden points out, the name Oldcastle was long remembered and may in this instance have been in the mind of the compositor whose copy no doubt read Fal. Or it may be that the familiar name Oldcastle found its way into MS. copies of 2 Henry IV. A reference to Falstaff as Oldcastle has been pointed out in The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinarie, or the Walks in Powles (1604), where Shuttlecock says, "Now Signiors how like you mine Host? did I not tell you he was a madde round knave, and a merrie one too: and if you chaunce to talke of fatte Sir John Old-castle, he wil tell you, he was his great Grandfather." So in Field's Amends for Ladies (1618), IV. iii., where there is a distinct reference to V. i. 127-141 of this play :

Did you never see

The Play where the fat Knight, hight Old-castle,

Did tell you truly what his honor was?

And Randolph in Hey for Honesty, IV. i., confusing Falstaff with his rich-faced lieutenant Bardolph (III. iii. 77), refers to

"the rich rubies and incomparable carbuncles of sir John Oldcastles nose." Finally Richard James,' in his Dedication to The Legend and Defence of Sir Jhon Oldcastle (c. 1625), and Fuller, in his Church History2 (1655) and in his Worthies (1662), state definitely that the name Falstaff had been substituted for that of Oldcastle.

Still another item of evidence cited to prove that "Falstaff” was originally " Oldcastle" is Shallow's statement that Falstaff, when a boy, was page to Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk (2 Henry IV. III. ii. 28, 29). The historical Sir John Oldcastle, it is said, "was in his youth Sir Thomas Mowbray's page". Dr. Aldis Wright, however, has shown that the only authority for this statement is John Weever (Mirror of Martyrs, 1601), and that Weever's authority was apparently the speech of Shallow just referred to.

Taking it then as established that "Oldcastle" was the name in the play as first acted, and considering how long it persisted in the memories of playgoers, we may assume that some time, at least many months, had elapsed between the first production of the play and its registration on February 25, 1598, by which date the name Falstaff had been adopted.

SOURCES

I. Holinshed, Chronicles.-As an historical play the First Part of Henry IV. cannot be dissociated from Richard II., the Second Part of Henry IV. and Henry V. The thread of history laid down at the end of Richard II. is taken up again at the beginning of Henry IV. In fact, the first speech in 1 Henry IV. serves at once as an introduction to the play and as a link with its forerunner. As in Richard II., Shakespeare based the historical part of Henry IV. chiefly on Holinshed's Chronicles, 1578-87. On the whole Shakespeare adheres to the facts of history, but he does not scruple, where necessary, to diverge from his authorities and to subordinate history to dramatic effect.

In Richard II. Bolingbroke is full of youthful vigour, buoyant and energetic, whereas in Henry IV. he is represented

1 See C. M. Ingleby, Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse, 1874.

2 See passages quoted on pp. xxiii and xxv post.

as a man kingly in his bearing and actions, yet bowed beneath a weight of cares. For this sudden transformation of King Henry there is perhaps some justification to be found in Holinshed, who dwells upon the troubles of the early years of the reign. In conclusion Holinshed says:

"Oh what a suspected state therefore is that of a king holding his regiment with the hatred of his people, the hart grudgings of his courtiers, and the peremtorie practises of both togither? Could he confidentlie compose or setle himselfe to sleepe for feare of strangling? Durst he boldly eat and drinke without dread of poisoning? Might he aduenture to shew himselfe in great meetings or solemne assemblies without mistrust of mischeefe against his person intended? What pleasure or what felicitie could he take in his princelie pompe, which he knew by manifest and fearfull experience, to be enuied and maligned to the verie death?" (Holinshed, Chronicles, ed. 1808, iii. 18, 19).

Holinshed does not make it clear what time elapsed between the death of Richard II, and the events with which the First Part of Henry IV. opens, but a little investigation discovers that he assigns an interval of two and a half years, from January, 1400, to June, 1402. Shakespeare reduces the interval to twelve months. That Shakespeare, however, intended to draw the King in 1 Henry IV. as a man well past middle life is evident. The whole play conveys this impression, and in V. i. 13 the King speaks of himself as being too old for service in the field. Yet, as a matter of fact, Henry IV. was born in 1366, and was thus only in his thirties at the date of the Battle of Shrewsbury. Hotspur, who is a young man in the play (see p. xvi post), was in reality more than two years older than the King.

The history of the Percys' revolt as related by Holinshed is given at length at the end of this Introduction (pp. xxxv ff.), and the notes illustrate the connection between the play and the Chronicles; but here it will be convenient to notice some instances in which Shakespeare diverges from his source, or is misled by his authority into historical errors.

(i) There is no warrant in Holinshed for the introduction of several characters whom Shakespeare has introduced into the historical action of the play. Prince John of Lancaster, who

was born in 1390, is given a rôle in the drama; but for this Holinshed supplies no authority. Shakespeare's purpose is obvious. He needed the younger, staider brother as a foil to the wild, if heroic, Prince Hal.

So Lady Percy and Lady Mortimer, although, like Prince John, historical characters, are introduced into the action for purely dramatic purposes. Their rôles-particularly that of Lady Mortimer-are slight, but they serve to grace the play with touches of tenderness. Moreover, Lady Percy's conversations with her husband supply opportunities for bringing out traits in the character of Hotspur. It may be observed here that the real Lady Percy, sister of Sir Edmund Mortimer, was called Elizabeth. Holinshed calls her Eleanor (p. xxxvii post), whilst Shakespeare names her Kate (II. iii. 37). A propos of this Steevens remarks the extraordinary fondness Shakespeare seems to have had for the "familiar appellation of Kate, which he is never weary of repeating, when he has once introduced it".

(ii) In the first scene the King announces his purpose to lead a crusade to recover Jerusalem from the infidels. Shakespeare here already begins to diverge from Holinshed, who assigns this project to the last year of Henry IV.'s reign:

"In this fourteenth and last yeare of king Henries reigne, a councell was holden in the white friers in London, at the which, among other things, order was taken for ships and gallies to be builded and made readie, and all other things necessarie to be prouided for a voiage which he meant to make into the holie land, there to recouer the citie of Ierusalem from the Infidels. For it greeued him to consider the great malice of christian princes, that were bent vpon a mischeefous purpose to destroie one another, to the perill of their owne soules, rather than to make war against the enimies of the christian faith, as in conscience (it seemed to him) they were bound" (Holinshed, Chronicles, ed. 1808, iii. 57).

(iii) In I. i. Shakespeare makes the news of the Battle of Holmedon arrive immediately after the news of Mortimer's defeat in the skirmish at Pilleth in Wales. This is another instance of Shakespeare's subordination of fact to dramatic exigencies; for Holinshed correctly assigns the defeat at

Pilleth to June 22, 1402, and the Battle of Holmedon to September 14 of the same year. It is possible that Shakespeare confused Holmedon with another border battle, at Nisbet Moor in Northumberland, which actually took place on the same day as the fight at Pilleth.1

(iv) Shakespeare follows Holinshed in confounding Sir Edmund Mortimer with Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March.2 Sir Edmund, who was defeated and captured by Glendower at Pilleth, in Radnorshire, June 22, 1402, was the second son of Edmund third Earl of March and his wife Philippa, daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence. Edmund, the fifth Earl of March, at this time a lad ten years old, was a grandson of the third Earl, and thus a nephew of Sir Edmund Mortimer. Sir Edmund Mortimer married Glendower's daughter (cf. I. iii.), and his sister Elizabeth was the wife of Hotspur. Now in I. iii. Hotspur speaks of Mortimer as "my wife's brother" (1. 142) and "my brother Edmund Mortimer" (1. 156); and in II. iii. 83 Lady Percy refers to him as "my brother Mortimer". In these passages Mortimer is identified with Sir Edmund Mortimer, whereas in III. i. 196, where he speaks of his "aunt Percy," he is identified with the young Edmund, Earl of March. On the whole one may say that Shakespeare assigns to Sir Edmund Mortimer the title and pretensions of his nephew the Earl of March. "The beginning of the confusion with regard to Edmund Mortimer appears to be in Hall's account of the articles of complaint against Henry IV., drawn up by the Percies. They are taken from the Latin as given in Hardyng's Chronicle (p. 353). The last of them runs thus in Hall (p. 30): Also we do alledge, saie, and intende to proue, that where Edmōd Mortimer erle of Marche and Ulster, was taken prisoner by Owen Glendor, etc.' In the Latin he is correctly called ' Edmundus Mortymere, frater Rogeri Mortymere nuper comitis Marchie et Ultonie.' The omission of four words has caused the error" (Wright).

(v) Prince Henry.-The interview between the Prince and his father in III. ii. is based on the passage from Holinshed given on pp. xlv ff. post. Shakespeare antedates it by several years. According to Shakespeare it takes place before the

1 See p. xxxvi post.

'See pp. xxxv ff. post.