But how are we to suppose this honour was acquired? By that very Courage, it should seem, which we so obstinately deny him. It was not certainly given him, like a modern City Knighthood, for his wealth or gravity: It was in these days a Military honour, and an authentic badge of Military merit. But _Falstaff_ was not only a Military Knight, he possess’d an honourable _pension_ into the bargain; the reward as well as retainer of service, and which seems (besides the favours perhaps of Mrs. _Ursula_) to be the principal and only solid support of his present expences. But let us refer to the passage. “_A pox of this gout, or a gout of this pox; for one or the other plays the rogue with my great toe: It is no matter if I do halt, I have the wars for my colour, and my pension shall seem the more reasonable._” The mention _Falstaff_ here makes of a pension, has I believe been generally construed to refer rather to _hope_ than _possession_, yet I know not why: For the possessive MY, _my pension_, (not _a_ pension) requires a different construction. Is it that we cannot enjoy a wit till we have stript him of every worldly advantage, and reduced him below the level of our envy? It may be perhaps for this reason among others that _Shakespeare_ has so obscured the better parts of _Falstaff_ and stolen them secretly out of our feelings, instead of opening them fairly to the notice of our understandings. How carelessly, and thro’ what bye-paths, as it were, of casual inference, is this fact of a pension introduced! And how has he associated it with misfortune and infirmity! Yet I question, however, if, in this one place, the _Impression_ which was intended be well and effectually made. It must be left to the reader to determine if, in that mass of things out of which _Falstaff_ is compounded, he ever considered a pension as any part of the composition: A pension however he appears to have had, one that halting could only seem to make more reasonable, not more honourable. The inference arising from the fact, I shall leave to the reader. It is surely a circumstance highly advantageous to _Falstaff_ (I speak of the pensions of former days), whether he be considered in the light of a soldier or a gentleman. I cannot foresee the temper of the reader, nor whether he be content to go along with me in these kind of observations. Some of the incidents which I have drawn out of the Play may appear too minute, whilst yet they refer to principles which may seem too general. Many points require explanation; something should be said of the nature of _Shakespeare_’s Dramatic characters;(44) by what arts they were formed, and wherein they differ from those of other writers; something likewise more professedly of _Shakespeare_ himself, and of the peculiar character of his genius. After such a review we may not perhaps think any consideration arising out of the Play, or out of general nature, either as too minute or too extensive.