I was considering the dignity of _Falstaff_ so far as it might seem connected with or productive of military merit, and I have assigned him _reputation_ at least, if not _fame_, noble connection, birth, attendants, title, and an honourable pension; every one of them presumptive proofs of Military merit, and motives of action. What deduction is to be made on these articles, and why they are so much obscured may, perhaps, hereafter appear. I have now gone through the examination of all the Persons of the Drama from whose mouths any thing can be drawn relative to the Courage of _Falstaff_, excepting the Prince and _Poins_, whose evidence I have begged leave to _reserve_, and excepting a very severe censure passed on him by Lord _John_ of _Lancaster_, which I shall presently consider: But I must first observe that, setting aside the jests of the Prince and _Poins_, and this censure of _Lancaster_, there is not one expression uttered by any character in the Drama that can be construed into any impeachment of _Falstaff_’s Courage;—an observation made before as respecting some of the Witnesses;—it is now extended to all: And though this silence be a negative proof only, it cannot, in my opinion, under the circumstances of the case, and whilst uncontradicted by facts, be too much relied on. If _Falstaff_ had been intended for the character of a _Miles Gloriosus_, his behaviour ought and therefore would have been commented upon by others. _Shakespeare_ seldom trusts to the apprehensions of his audience; his characters interpret for one another continually, and when we least suspect such artful and secret management: The conduct of _Shakespeare_ in this respect is admirable, and I could point out a thousand passages which might put to shame the advocates of a formal Chorus, and prove that there is as little of necessity as grace in so mechanic a contrivance.(46) But I confine my censure of the Chorus to its supposed use of comment and interpretation only.