In the mean while, it may not perhaps be easy for him to resolve how it comes about, that, whilst we look upon _Falstaff_ as a character of the like nature with that of _Parolles_ or of _Bobadil_, we should preserve for him a great degree of respect and good-will, and yet feel the highest disdain and contempt of the others, tho’ they are all involved in similar situations. The reader, I believe, would wonder extremely to find either _Parolles_ or _Bobadil_ possess himself in danger: What then can be the cause that we are not at all surprized at the gaiety and ease of _Falstaff_ under the most trying circumstances; and that we never think of charging _Shakespeare_ with departing, on this account, from the truth and coherence of character? Perhaps, after all, the _real_ character of _Falstaff_ may be different from his _apparent_ one; and possibly this difference between reality and appearance, whilst it accounts at once for our liking and our censure, may be the true point of humour in the character, and the source of all our laughter and delight. We may chance to find, if we will but examine a little into the nature of those circumstances which have accidentally involved him, that he was intended to be drawn as a character of much Natural courage and resolution; and be obliged thereupon to repeal those decisions which may have been made upon the credit of some general tho’ unapplicable propositions; the common source of error in other and higher matters. A little reflection may perhaps bring us round again to the point of our departure, and unite our Understandings to our instinct.—Let us then for a moment _suspend_ at least our decisions, and candidly and coolly inquire if Sir _John Falstaff_ be, indeed, what he has so often been called by critic and commentator, male and female,—a _Constitutional Coward_. It will scarcely be possible to consider the Courage of _Falstaff_ as wholly detached from his other qualities: But I write not professedly of any part of his character, but what is included under the term, _Courage_; however, I may incidentally throw some lights on the whole.—The reader will not need to be told that this Inquiry will resolve itself of course into a Critique on the genius, the arts, and the conduct of _Shakespeare_: For what is _Falstaff_, what _Lear_, what _Hamlet_, or _Othello_, but different modifications of _Shakespeare_’s thought? It is true that this Inquiry is narrowed almost to a single point: But general criticism is as uninstructive as it is easy: _Shakespeare_ deserves to be considered in detail;—a task hitherto unattempted.