HE first edition of this play was published in 1602, under the following title: "A most pleasaunt and excellent conceited Comedy of Syr John Falstaffe, and the Merry Wives of Windsor. Entermixed with sundrie variable and pleasing humors of Sr Hugh the Welch Knight, Justice Shallow, and his wise Cousin M. Slender. With the swaggering vaine of Ancient Pistoll and Corporal Nym. By William Shakespeare. As it hath bene divers times acted by the Right Honourable my Lord Chamberlaines Servants; Both before her Majestie and else where. London: Printed by T. C. for Arthur Johnson, &c. &c. 1602." The same copy was reprinted in 1619. The comedy as it now stands first appeared in the folio of 1623. Knight is of opinion that the quarto of the MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR was piratically published, after the play had been re-modelled by its author. The copy of the folio contains very nearly twice the number of lines that the quarto contains. The succession of scenes is the same in both copies, except in one instance; but the speeches of the several characters are greatly elaborated in the amended copy, and several of the characters not only heightened, but new distinctive features given to them. We point out these differences, for the purpose of showing that, although the quarto of 1602 was most probably piratically published when the play had been re-modelled, and was re-printed without alteration in 1619, (the amended copy then remaining unpublished,) the copy of that first edition must not be considered as an imperfect transcript of the complete play. It stands precisely upon the same ground as the first copy of HENRY V. The differences between the two copies are produced by the alterations of the author working upon his first sketch. The extent of these changes and elaborations can only be satisfactorily perceived by comparing the two copies, scene by scene.

The opinion that this comedy was written after the two parts of HENRY IV. is not quite in consonance with the tradition that Queen Elizabeth desired to see Falstaff in love; for Shakespeare might have given this turn to the character in HENRY V., after the announcement in the Epilogue to the second part of HENRY IV. :-" our humble author will continue the story, with Sir John in it." Malone's theory, therefore, that it was produced after HENRY V., is in accordance with the tradition as received by him with such an implicit belief. George Chalmers, however, in his "Supplemental Apology," laughs at the tradition, and at Malone's theory. He believes that the three historical plays and the comedy were successively written in 1596, and in 1597, but that HENRY V. was produced the last. He says "In it (HENRY V.) Falstaff does not come out upon the stage, but dies of a sweat, after performing less than the attentive auditors were led to expect and in it, ancient Pistol appears as the husband of Mistress Quickly; who also dies, during the ancient's absence in the wars of France. Yet do the commentators bring the knight to life, and revive and unmarry the dame, by assigning the year 1601 as the epoch of the MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR. Queen Elizabeth is said by the critics to have commanded these miracles to be worked in 1601,-a time when she was in no proper mood for such fooleries. The tradition on which is founded the story of Elizabeth's command to exhibit the facetious knight in love, I think too improbable for belief." Chalmers goes on to argue that after Falstaff's disgrace at the end of the second part of HENRY IV. (which is followed in HENRY V. by the assertion that "the King has killed his heart") he was not in a fit condition for "a speedy appearance among the Merry Wives of Windsor ;" and further, that if it be true, as the first act of the second part evinces, that Sir John, soon after doing good service at Shrewsbury, was sent off, with some charge, to Lord John of Lancaster at York, he could not consistently saunter to Windsor, after his rencontre with the Chief-Justice. Looking at these contradictions, Chalmers places "the true epoch of this comedy in 1596;" and affirms "that its proper place is before the first part of HENRY IV." Knight conjectures that it was produced before the Histories; and that the characters were subsequently heightened, and more strikingly delineated, to assimilate them to the characters of the Histories.

After all, we have endeavoured, while we have expressed our own belief, fairly to present both sides of the question. The point, we think, is of interest to the lovers of Shakespeare; for inferring that the comedy is a continuation of the history, the inferiority of the Falstaff of the MERRY WIVES to the Falstaff of HENRY IV., implies a considerable abatement of the Poet's skill. On the other hand, the conviction that the sketch of the comedy preceded the history-that it was an early play-and that it was subsequently re-modelled-is consistent with the belief in the progression of that extraordinary intellect which acquired greater vigour the more its powers were exercised.

There is a prodigal and glorious throng of incident and character in this very admirable comedy: for variety, and broad, unceasing effect, it stands perhaps unrivalled. Each individual member of the breathing group-the Wives, the Husbands, the Doctor, Parson, mine Host of the Garter, Shallow, Slender; every character, in short, from Falstaff and his satellites to Simple and Rugby-stands out in the clearest light, and assists in reflecting the sunshine of the author's intellect for the delight and instruction of the reader or spectator. It has been said, and truly, that Falstaff, in this play, is not so unctuous and irresistible as in the two parts of HENRY IV.; but, if the Falstaff of Windsor must succumb to him of Gadshill and Shrewsbury, it should in fairness be added,—

"Nought but himself can be his conqueror."

Even the gullibility of the unfortunate old boy, (as drawn forth of him by the witcheries of the wicked wives,) places him in an amiable point of view, and raises a new sensation in his favour. Our choler would rise, despite of us, against Cleopatra herself, should she presume to make a dupe and tool of regal old Jack, the natural lord and master of all about him: and, although not so atrociously immoral as to wish he had succeeded with the Windsor gipsies, we yet plead guilty to the minor turpitude of sympathy, when he tells his persecutors, with brightening visage and exultant twinkle of eye,-"I am glad, though you have ta'en a special stand to strike at me, that your arrow hath glanced."

The serious part of this play bears but a small proportion to the facetious, but is equally good in its kind. The softer sentiment is confined to Fenton and Anne Page, both of whom give indications of possessing very loveable natures, although their persons seem thrust into a corner (an arrangement to which the lovers themselves would probably start no objection) by the crowd of comic roysterers.

There are various old stories and dramas from which Shakespeare may have gathered hints for the dilemmas in which Falstaff is involved in the present play: but the tale of "The Lovers of Pisa," in a collection called "Tarleton's Newes out of Purgatorie," appears to have been the immediate source of his inspiration in this particular. The coincidences, however, do not extend to the characters. The lover in the tale is a handsome youth, and really favoured by the young lady, who plots with him to deceive her husband, a jealous old physician. In the play, literally speaking, the lover is old, the wives not young, and their husbands of corresponding ages: but, poetically considered, they and the whole dramatis persone are all dainty juveniles together, and can never lose their freshness while the language lasts in which they are embodied.

THE Costume of this comedy is, of course, the same with that of the two parts of HENRY IV. Chaucer, however, who wrote his Canterbury Tales towards the close of the previous reign, gives us a few hints for the habit of some of the principal characters in the MERRY WIVES. Dr. Caius, for instance, should be clothed, like the Doctor of Physic, "in sanguine and in perse," (i. e. in purple and light blue,) the gown being "lined with tafata and sendal." In the "Testament of Cresseyde" Chaucer speaks of a Physician in "a scarlet gown," and "furred well, as such a one ought to be;" but scarlet and purple were terms used indifferently one for the other, and the phrase "scarlet red" was generally used to designate that colour which we now call scarlet.

The Franklin or Country gentleman-the Master Page, or Master Ford of this play-is merely said to have worn an anelace or knife, and a white silk gipciere or purse hanging at his girdle.

The Young 'Squire may furnish us with the dress of Master Fenton. He is described as wearing a short gown, with sleeves long and wide, and embroidered "as it were a mead, all full of fresh flowers, white and red." Falstaff, when dressed as Herne the Hunter, should be attired like his Yeoman, in a coat and hood of green, with a horn slung in a green baldrick.

The Wife of Bath is said to have worn, on a Sunday, or holyday, kerchiefs on her head of the finest manufacture, but in such a quantity as to weigh nearly a pound. When abroad, she wore "a hat as broad as is a buckler or a targe." Her stockings were of fine scarlet red, and her shoes "full moist and new." The highcrowned hats and point-lace aprons, in which the Merry Wives of Windsor have been usually depicted, are of the seventeenth instead of the fifteenth century.

In relation to mine Host of the Garter, and of the local customs and business of the town of Windsor at the close of the sixteenth century, Knight has furnished us with some very interesting notices. He says

"In the original Sketch we have the story of the 'cozenage' of mine Host of the Garter, by some Germans, who pretended to be of the retinue of a German Duke. Now, if we knew that a real German Duke had visited Windsor, (a rare occurrence in the days of Elizabeth,) we should have the date of the Comedy pretty exactly fixed. The circumstance would be one of those local and temporary allusions which Shakespeare seized upon to arrest the attention of his audience. In 1592, a German Duke did visit Windsor. We have before us, through the kindness of a friend, a narrative printed in the old German language, of the journey to England of the Duke of Wurtemberg, in 1592, which narrative, drawn up by his secretary, contains a daily journal of his proceedings. He was accompanied by a considerable retinue, and travelled under the name of the Count Mombeliard.' "The German Duke' visited Windsor; was shown the splendidly beautiful and royal castle;' hunted in the 'parks full of fallow-deer and other game;' heard the music of an organ, and of other instruments, with the voices of little boys, as well as a sermon an hour long, in a church covered with lead; and, after staying some days, departed for Hampton Court. His grace and his suit must have caused a sensation at Windsor. Probably mine Host of the Garter had really made 'grand preparation for a Duke de Jarmany ;'-at any rate he would believe Bardolph's story,-'the Germans desire to have three of your horses.' Was there any dispute about the ultimate payment for the Duke's horses for which he was 'to pay nothing?' Was mine Host out of his reckoning when he said they shall have my horses, but I'll make them pay? We have little doubt that the passages which relate to the German duke, (all of which, with slight alteration, are in the original sketch,) have reference to the Duke of Wurtemburg's visit to Windsor in 1592,-a matter to be forgotten in 1601, when Malone says the Sketch was written; and somewhat stale in 1596, which Chalmers assigns as its date."