_On a Passage in the Second Part of Henry IV.--The Death of Falstaff._--I
have read with much pleasure your very temperate remarks on the fiery
contributions of some of your correspondents; and I trust that, after
so gentle a rebuke from certainly the most good-natured Editor living,
all will henceforth go "merry as a marriage bell." Amongst the lore that
I have picked up since my first acquaintance with "N. & Q.," is that
profound truth,
"'Tis a very good world that we live in:"
but I must say I think it would be a very dull one if we all thought
alike; as "N. & Q." would be a very dull book if it were not seasoned
with differences of opinion, and its pages diversified with discussions
and ingenious argument. And what can be more agreeable, when, like an
animated conversation, it is conducted with fairness and good temper?
However, now we are to start fair again; and to begin with a difference,
I must presume to question a decision of your own which I would fain see
recalled. I believe with you that MR. COLLIER'S _Notes and Emendations_
gives the true reading of the passage in _Henry V._, "on a table of
green frieze," and I, moreover, think that Theobald's conjecture "and 'a
babbled o' green fields," was worthy of any poet. Theobald was engaged
in the laborious work of minute verbal correction, and necessarily took
an isolated view of particular passages. Presenting the difficulty which
this passage did, his suggestion was a happy and poetical thought. But
when you say that the scholiast excelled his author, we must take another
view of the case. The question is not as to which passage is the most
poetical, but which is most in place; which was the idea most natural
to be expressed. And in this I think you will admit that Shakspeare's
judgment must be deferred to, and that taking the character of Falstaff,
_together with the other circumstances detailed of his death_, it is not
natural that he should be represented as "babbling o' green fields."
You are aware that Fielding, in his _Journey from this World to the
next_, met with Shakspeare, who, in answer to a similar question to that
put to Göthe, gave a like answer to the one you report. This arises in
a great measure from the imperfection of language; the most careful
writers at times express themselves obscurely. But with regard to Ben
Jonson, I should say that, though neither a mean nor an unfriendly
critic, he was certainly a prejudiced one. He saw Shakspeare from
the conventional-classic point of view, and {314} would doubtless
have "blotted" much that we should have regretted submitting to his
judgment. Yet, after all, the anecdote is not according to the fact.
Shakspeare _did_ "blot" thousands of lines, probably many more than Ben
Jonson himself ever did; and of this we have the best evidence in whole
plays almost re-written. Even in the single instance rare Ben gives of
Shakspeare's incorrectness, published many years after the latter's
death, the memory or hearing of the former either were at fault, or the
line had been "blotted."
Absolute perfection is, of course, not to be looked for; there is no
such thing in reference to human affairs, unless it be in constant and
unobstructed growth and development. This is exhibited in Shakspeare's
writing to a degree shown by no other writer. The shortcomings of
Shakspeare are most evident when he is compared with himself,--the
earlier with the later writer. But take his earliest work, so far as
can be ascertained, in its earliest form, and the literature of the age
cannot produce its equal.