It may seem very extravagant to insist upon _Falstaff_’s birth as a ground from which, by any inference, Personal courage may be derived, especially after having acknowledged that he seemed to have deserted those points of honour which are more peculiarly the accompanyments of rank. But it may be observed that in the Feudal ages rank and wealth were not only connected with the point of honour, but with personal strength and natural courage. It is observable that Courage is a quality which is at least as transmissible to one’s posterity as features and complexion. In these periods men acquired and maintained their rank and possessions by personal prowess and gallantry; and their marriage alliances were made, of course, in families of the same character: And from hence, and from the exercises of their youth, we must account for the distinguished force and bravery of our antient Barons. It is not therefore beside my purpose to inquire what hints of the origin and birth of _Falstaff_, _Shakespeare_ may have dropped in different parts of the Play; for tho’ we may be disposed to allow that _Falstaff_ in his old age might, under particular influences, desert the point of honour, we cannot give up that unalienable possession of Courage, which might have been derived to him from a noble or distinguished stock. But it may be said that _Falstaff_ was in truth the child of invention only, and that a reference to the Feudal accidents of birth serves only to confound fiction with reality: Not altogether so. If the ideas of courage and _birth_ were strongly associated in the days of _Shakespeare_, then would the assignment of high birth to _Falstaff_ carry, and be intended to carry along with it, to the minds of the audience the associated idea of Courage, if nothing should be specially interposed to dissolve the connection;—and the question is as concerning this intention, and this effect. I shall proceed yet farther to make a few very minute observations of the same nature: But if _Shakespeare_ meant sometimes rather to _impress_ than explain, no circumstances calculated to this end, either directly or by association, are too minute for notice. But however this may be, a more conciliating reason still remains: The argument itself, like the tales of our Novelists, is a _vehicle_ only; _theirs_, as they profess, of moral instruction; and _mine_ of critical amusement. The vindication of _Falstaff_’s Courage deserves not for its own sake the least sober discussion; _Falstaff_ is the word only, _Shakespeare_ is the _Theme_: And if thro’ this channel I can furnish no irrational amusement, the reader will not, perhaps, every where expect from me the strict severity of logical investigation.