VI. HOW SIR JOHN FALSTAFF WON THE BATTLE OF SHREWSBURY.

Even had the Royalist side been deprived of the immense weight of Sir

John Falstaff’s counsels and support, the issue of the struggle could

not have been doubtful. Fortune seemed to have declared against the

rebels from the outset. The Earl of Northumberland was taken ill at

Berwick, and unable to join his gallant son in the field. The Welsh

under Glendower did not come up in time for the battle. All the efforts

of their gallant and patriotic chieftain to bring his troops past the

neighbouring cheese districts of the border county of Chester had proved

ineffectual.

Nevertheless the rebels determined on giving battle, which was perhaps a

superfluous piece of generosity on their part, as the king, the princes,

and Sir John Falstaff had come determined to take it. Hotspur--the

warmth of whose heels would not seem to have produced in him any

remarkable coolness of head--sent, on the eve of the engagement, an

epistle to the king, which is strikingly illustrative of the knightly

courtesy of the period. In this document he accuses Henry of murder,

perjury, illegal taxation, obtaining money under false pretences,

kidnapping, and bribery at elections. * The crimes of garrotting and

stealing drinking vessels from the railings of private dwellings were

not then known, or it is more than probable that these too would have

entered into the wholesale list of accusations. Such a document, it

will be admitted, was not calculated to dispose the king to leniency or

placability. He was a monarch of the bilious temperament, and not at

any time remarkable for excessive amiability or good humour. A popular

historian has informed us that “he was subject to fits, which bereaved

him for a time of reason.” ** The effect of such a communication on a

monarch so constituted may be imagined.

* Hall, folio 21--‘22, &c.

** Pinnock on Goldsmith--a work that has not come within

the sphere of my observation for many years. The passage

quoted, however, and many others from the same, were

indelibly impressed on my memory at the time of perusal by a

system of mnemonics now unhappily falling into disuse.--

Biographer.

Whether it was that the insurgent chieftains had formed a mistaken

estimate of the king’s nature, and imagined that he required a great

deal of provoking before he could be induced to give them the thrashing

they seemed so ardently to desire, it would be difficult to say. At

any rate, on the morning of the battle, Sir Thomas Percy, the Earl of

Worcester, thought it advisable to look in on the royal camp, as he

happened to be passing, with a flag of truce, and favour his Majesty

with a _viva voce resume_ of some of the heads of his nephew’s spirited

epistle of the preceding night, which might have slipped the royal

memory. To Percy’s address--which has been put into excellent blank

verse by Shakspeare--the king replied with a proposal that the rebels

should lay down their arms and go home quietly, which he knew would not

be accepted. Percy departed, and the royal council of war at which he

had been heard--and at the deliberations of which the Princes Henry and

John, with Sir Walter Blunt and Sir John Falstaff, had assisted--broke

up to prepare for action.

The rival armies were drawn up on a large plain near the town of

Shrewsbury overlooked by Haughmond Hill. The character of the ground

is indicated in the opening lines of the fifth act of the chronicle of

“Henry the Fourth” (Part I.):--

“How bloodily the sun begins to peer

Above yon bosky hill!

The day looks pale

At his distemperature.”

Herein we have one of ten thousand proofs of Shakspeare’s fidelity to

historic and natural truth on all occasions. Mr. Blakeway says that

great author has described the scene as accurately as if he had surveyed

it. “It still merits the appellation of a bosky hill.”

“Bosky” must be taken in its ancient and poetical sense, signifying

“wood-covered,” and not in its more modern and familiar acceptation,

which the presence of Sir John Falstaff, Bardolph, and other warriors of

their way of living, might have rendered applicable to the aspect of the

country.

The opposing forces were about equal in number, each army consisting

in round numbers of twelve thousand men. In point of discipline and

training the advantages were also fairly balanced. The light infantry,

under Sir John Falstaff, consisted, as we have seen, of raw recruits,

indifferently clad and nourished. But, as an offset to this must be

taken into consideration the condition of the Scots under Douglas--large

numbers of whom, being from the northern highlands, were, according to

English notions, of necessity more imperfectly clothed than even the

Falstaff troops themselves. For courage on either side there could not

have been much to choose; Englishmen and Scotchmen could hit as hard,

and were quite as fond of doing it, then as in the present day.

The Life of Sir John Falstaff · 第 39 / 67 题