ed

tinued in the Morris dance as late as the year 1621, I once thought that the glass might be stained about that time; but my present objections to this are the following ones. It seems from the prologue to the play of King Henry VIII. that Shakspeare's fools should be dressed" in a long motley coat guarded with yellow;" but the fool upon my window is not so habited; and he has upon his head a hood, which I apprehend might be the coverture of the fool's head before the days of Shakspeare, when it was a cap with a comb like a cock's, as both Dr. Warburton and Dr. Johnson assert, and they seem justified in doing so from King Lear's fool giving Kent his cap, and calling it his coxcomb. I am uncertain, whether any judgment can be formed from the manner of spelling the inscrolled inscription upon the May-pole, upon which is displayed the old banner of England, and not the union flag of Great Britain, or St. George's red cross and St. Andrew's white cross joined together, which was ordered by King James in 1606, as Stowe's Chronicle certifies. Only one of the doublets has buttons, which I conceive were common in Queen Elizabeth's reign; nor have any of the figures ruffs, which fashion commenced in the latter days of Henry VIII. and from their want of beards also I am inclined to suppose they were delineated before the year 1535, when "King Henry VIII. commanded all about his court to poll their heads, and caused his own to be polled, and his beard to be notted, and no more shaven." Probably the glass was painted in his youthful days, when he delighted in Maygames, unless it may be judged to be of much higher antiquity by almost two centuries.

Such are my conjectures upon a subject of so much obscurity; but it is high time to resign it to one more conversant with the history of our ancient dresses. TOLLET.

A full investigation of this curious subject may be found in Mr. Douce's Illustrations of Shakspeare. BOSWELL.

"I saw young Harry with his beaver on." p. 362. There are two other passages in Shakspeare's plays that relate to the beaver, which it will be best to insert here for the purpose of avoiding confusion, and to afford likewise the means of assembling together the various and discordant opinions of the commentators. They are, 1, in Henry IV. Part II. Act IV. Sc. I.-their beavers down; and, 2, in Hamlet, Act I. Sc. II.-he wore his beaver up.

In the first of these passages Dr. Warburton would read-with his beaver up; and he remarks that "the beaver is only the visiere of the helmet, which, let down, covers the face. When the soldier was not upon action he wore it up, so that his face might be seen, but when upon action, it was let down, to cover and secure the face." All this is correct, except that the beaver is certainly not the visor.

Dr. Johnson says, "there is no need of all this note; for beaver may be a helmet." This too is very just; the beaver, a part only of the helmet strictly speaking, is frequently used to express a helmet generally. Thus, in the first scene of the third part of King Henry VI.: "I cleft his beaver with a downright blow." The latter part of the doctor's note was unnecessary, and its inference apparently wrong.

Mr. Malone remarks that " Dr. Warburton seems not to have observed, that Vernon only says, he saw young Harry, not that he saw his face." But surely, Dr. Warburton having contended for the reading beaver up, could not have misconceived Vernon's meaning as above.

Dr. Lort contents himself with distinguishing and explaining the beaver and visor. He is however wrong in stating that the beaver was let down to enable the wearer to drink.

Mr. Malone's second note relating to Hamlet, will be considered in the third passage.

In the second passage, Mr. Malone remarks that the beaver "is confounded both here and in Hamlet with visor, or used for helmet in general," but that "Shakspeare is not answerable for any confusion on this subject, as he used beaver in the same sense in which it was used by all his contemporaries." The latter part of this note applies very justly to the first passage—beaver on, where it is used generally for a helmet, but not to the present; beavers down being perfectly accurate. It is submitted that the former part of the note, which relates to a supposed confusion both here and in Hamlet between beaver and visor, is not quite accurate, as may hereafter appear.

In the third passage Mr. Malone says: "though beaver properly signified that part of the helmet which was let down, to enable the wearer to drink, Shakspeare always uses the word as denoting that part of the helmet which, when raised up, exposed the face of the wearer; and such was the popular signification of the word in his time. In Bullokar's English Expositor, 8vo. 1616, beaver is defined thus ::"In armour it signifies that part of the helmet which may be lifted up to take the breath more freely." On this passage Mr. Malone had also before remarked that Shakspeare confounded the beaver and visor; for in Hamlet Horatio says that he saw the old king's face, because he wore his beaver up; and yet the learned commentator inadvertently quotes Bullokar's definition, which is adverse to his own opinion. Another observation that suggests itself on Mr. Malone's note on Hamlet is, that Shakspeare does not always use beaver to denote that part of the helmet which, when raised up, exposed the face of the wearer; because we have just seen that he sometimes, as other writers do, applies it to the whole of the helmet.

And lastly, as to preceding notes; the present writer had, in defending Shakspeare's accuracy, expressed himself in most

faulty and inaccurate terms, when he said that "the beaver was as often made to lift up as to let down." A great deal of confusion has arisen from the want of due attention to these words.

There is a chance that the reader, unless he have paid more attention to what has already been stated than it perhaps deserves, may have got into a labyrinth; from which it shall be the endeavour of the rest of this note to extricate him.

In the first place,-no want of accuracy whatever is imputable to Shakspeare.

The beaver of a helmet is frequently used by writers, improperly enough, to express the helmet itself. It is in reality the lower part of it, adapted to the purpose of giving the wearer an opportunity of taking breath when oppressed with heat, or, without putting off the helmet, of taking his repast. As it was raised up for this purpose, it could of course be let down again; but it could not be let down on either of the before-mentioned occasions. The visiere or visor was another moveable part in the front of a helmet, and placed above the beaver in order to protect the upper part of the face; and being perforated with many holes, afforded the wearer an opportunity of discerning objects: and thence its name. It was made also to lift up when the party either wanted more air, or was desirous of seeing more distinctly. It was perhaps never down but in actual combat; whilst the beaver would be thrown up or kept down at the wearer's discretion, without much difference, except that in battle it would be closed, and at meals, or for additional coolness, thrown up. In short, the visor or beaver could only be let down after they had been already lifted up; and when a writer speaks of their being down, it is generally meant that the helmet is closed.

See Grose's Treatise on Ancient Armour, plates 10, 26, 30.

DOUCE. Mr. Douce in his Illustrations has given us several representations of ancient helmets, to exemplify his remarks. BOSWELL.

For the following curious paper, relating to the frequent robberies on Gadshill in our author's time, I am indebted to my friend Mr. Ellis of the British Museum. BOSWELL.

Gadshill, on the Kentish road, the scene of the robbery of Falstaff in The First Part of Shakspeare's Henry the Fourth, has been but slightly noticed, and that by one only of the commentators on our great bard.

Mr. Steevens informs us, that as early as 1558, a ballad entitled The Robbery at Gadshill was entered on the books of the Stationers' Company; and this place is again noticed as dangerous in the play of Westward Hoe, published in 1606.

Shakspeare, however, on whom the more noted facts and events of his time were never lost, probably alluded to the conduct of a particular gang, who appear in 1590, to have infested Gadshill and its neighbourhood with more than common daring

ness; and who, like Shakspeare's robbers, were mounted and wore vizors.

The particulars respecting them are found in a Narrative preserved among the Lansdown Manuscripts in the British Museum, in the hand-writing of Sir Roger Manwood, at that time Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and indorsed with the date of 3d July, 1590.

"Circumstances vrginge me S. Roger Manwood to proceade to the late indytinge of Curtall, Manweringe, and other Malefactors in Kent.

"When a Contrye is anoyed with frequent Robberyes, and the malefactors not discovered, I holde yt to bee a good parte of Justice to examyne and learne what persons in the contry doe havnt ines, typling howses, and highe wayes, ryding gallantlye, lyvinge in Apparell and other expences far above their knowne lawfull meanes of lyvinge and abilitye; of which sorte Manweringe, Curtall, and Essex, weare knowne to bee iij.

"In October, at beginninge of last Mychaelmas Terme iij or iiijor robberyes done at Gadeshill by certen ffoote theves, vppon hughe and crye, one of the Theves named Zachfeild flying and sqvatted in a bushe was brought to me, and vppon examynacon fyndinge a purse and things about him suspiciouse, and his cause of being there and his flyinge and other circumstances very suspiciouse, I commytted him to the Jayle, and he ys of that robberye indyted.

"In the course of that Mychaelmas Terme, I being at London, many robberyes weare done in the hye wayes at Gadeshill on the west parte of Rochester, and at Chatham downe on the East parte of Rochester, by horse theves, with suche fatt and lustye horses as weare not lyke hackney horsses nor farr jorneyng horsses, and one of them sometyme wearing a vizarde greye bearde, (by reason that to the persons robbed the Theves did use to mynister an othe that there should bee no hue and crye made after, and also did gyve a watche woorde for the parties robbed, the better to escape other of their Theves companye devyded vppon the hyghe waye,) he was by common report in the Contry called Justice greye Bearde; and no man durst travell that waye without great companye.

"After thend of that Mychaelmas terme, iij or iiij gent": from London, rydinge home towards Canterburye, at the West end of Gadeshill, we are overtaken by v. or vj horsemen all in Clokes vpp about their faces, and fellowe like all, and none lyke servants or waytinge on thother, and swiftly ridinge by them gat to the East end of Gadeshill, and there turned about all their horsses on the faces of the trewe men, wherby they became in feare; but by chanse one of the trewe men did knowe this Curtall to bee one of the v or vj. swift ryders, and after some speache betwene them of the

manyfold robberyes there done and that by company of this Curtall that gentleman hoped to have the more saffetye from robbing, this Curtall, with the other v or vj swifte ryders, rode awaye to Rochester before, and the trewe men coming afterwards neere Rochester they did mete this Curtail retorning on horsebacke, rydinge towards Gadeshill againe. And after they had passed Rochester, in Chatham streete, at a smyths fordge they did see the reste of the swyft ryders tarying about shoing of some of their horsses, and then the trewe men doubted to be sett vppon at Chathan downe, but their company being the greater they passed without troble to Sittingborne that nighte when they harde of robberyes daylye done at Chatham downe and Gadeshill, and that this Curtall with v or vj other as lustye Companyons and well horssed mvche havnted the Innes and typlinge howses at Raynham, Sittingborne, and Rochester, with liberall expences.

Afterwards at a howse wheare payment of monye was made, and by chance vppon the monye pooringe out (one Testerne) fell from the heape, and whiles the partie was busye in telling the heape, this Curtall being in companye, toke awaye that Testerne, and being in talke with one of his acquaintance, who sayde he marvelled to see Curtall in so good estate for apparell and horsse and other mayntenance, Curtall sayde that he spent c" by yeare; thother asking him howe he came by somuche lyvinge Curtall answered that he dyd serve no man, but lyved of himselfe, but, nowe and then, when yt pleased him he had entertaynment at the howse of his good Captaine St. Edward Hobby, and in the course of that winter nere Chatham downe, within a myle or ij of St. Edward Hobbyes howse weare manye robberyes done, uppon one Gason, one Chapman, one Manser, and many others, but no discoverye of the malefactors.

Howbeyt one Shawe of Rochester nere Chatham downe, rydinge in the hye waye was sett vppon by ffoote theves who did fell him from his horsse, and by other trewe mens company cominge he escaped robbinge, which Shawe, vppon his cominge to Rochester beinge examyned by a Justice of Peace sayde that for the hurte to him done he would bee revenged vppon this Curtall, and one other Parker, St. Edward Hobbyes Cater, whom he did know to bee ij of them that sett vppon him.

Afterwards, at Lent Assizes, one Manwaringe, a notoriouse theife and a famylier of Curtall was araigned for a Fellonye, and notwithstandinge plaine evidence againste him, was acquitted by a badd Jury which weare by the Justices of Assize bound over to awnsweare for their misdemeanor, and Curtall was present at the same Assizes and thought he did vse meanes for helpinge of his ffreind Manwaringe. And notwithstandinge that Acquittall of Manwaringe, the same Manwaringe was for a burglarye done in Canterburye and other matter of felonye (besydes that whereof he was acquitted) repryed to the Jayle by the Justices of Assize