appears to have possessed a monopoly of the part, to the entire exclusion of every other actor; for no notice is taken of any other representative of Falstaff, previous to the suppression of the Theatres, which was accomplished by the influence of the fanatical party in parliament, in the year 1647.

The first actor of Falstaff, after the Restoration, of whom we have any account, was a bookseller in Holborn of the name of Cartwright, whose name is mentioned in Downe's "Roscius Anglicanus," but of whose performance nothing is known. He very liberally bequeathed his books to Dulwich College.

Cartwright was succeeded in the character of Falstaff by Lacy, the favourite actor of Charles II., who was so delighted with his performances; that he had his picture taken in three distinct characters, which may still be seen at Hampton

court.

He is spoken of by Langbaine as the most perfect comic player of his time, and is described by Aubrey as being " of an elegant shape and fine complexion." He appears to have been one of the recruits picked up by the King's Company soon after the Restoration, as there is no trace of his having acted previous to the civil wars. Lacy wrote three plays, of no

great merit; he died in 1681, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Martin's in the Fields.

The next actor of eminence, whose name has been handed down to us as the representative of the "doughty knight," is Betterton, whose wonderful powers and admirable versatility formed an inexhaustible source of delight for the audiences of his day. This great master of his profession had been long accustomed to play Hotspur, with general applause: towards the latter part of his life, however, he determined to try his abilities in Falstaff, and speedily convinced the town that the most humorous walk of comedy was equally within the scope of his capacity, with the highest flights of tragedy. A singular circumstance is recorded by Davies as having influenced him considerably to modify the style of his personation of this character, which ought not to be passed over in silence, as it is strongly indicative of the modesty and good sense of this excellent actor. There was in Dublin a master paviour of the name of Baker, who excelled in several comic parts, and especi ally in Sir Epicure Mammon, (in the " Alchymist,") in the Spanish Friar, and in Falstaff. Some singular anecdotes of this person are to be

found in "Chetwood's History of the Stage." A London actor, of the same name with the great dramatic poet, Ben Jonson, happening to pay a visit to Dublin, communicated to Betterton, on his return, Baker's manner of personating Falstaff, which, says Davies, Betterton "not only approved, but adopted, and frankly owned that the paviour's draught of Sir John was more characteristical than his own." This great actor died in 1710.

In the interval between Betterton and Quin, several actors were induced to attempt to bend this bow of Ulysses, but with very indifferent success. Barton Booth, at the express command of Queen Anne, ventured upon the character, for one night only, and then abandoned it in despair. The elder Mills also tried his skill in its representation; but, alas! the sober gravity of his face could never be made to express the inimitable humour of Falstaff. The fat figure, full voice, round face, and honest laugh of Harper, were more in his favour, but few gleams of intellect or genius beamed through his perfor

mance.

One of the earliest performances of Rich's Company at the Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields,

was the "Merry Wives of Windsor," and in this, confessedly the feeblest portrait which our immortal bard has given of the merry knight, Quin gained such great applause, that he was soon induced to try his fortune in the more strongly marked delineation of the character, which is to be found in the First Part of Henry IV. He possessed a tall and bulky person, a strong and pleasing voice, a bold and manly countenance, and a piercing and expressive eye. His style of acting was highly animated, and his sarcasm poignant and biting. With these qualifications he could not fail to succeed in the representation of such a character as Falstaff, and in spite of some defects with which he was charged, he speedily gained the reputation of the most intelligent and judicious performer who had appeared in it since the days of Betterton.

Of Berry, Lowe, Shuter, Woodward, and Yates, who all in turn put on Falstaff's habit, little need be said, as none of them are considered to have succeeded in the delineation of that soul of mirth and good humour with which the boundless fancy and creative genius of Shakspeare have animated his unwieldy carcase. Clever, as most of these actors were in their

VOL. III.

F

respective lines, they were obviously unfit for the representation of a character so far above the common reach.

Henderson's performance of the character is, however, deserving of more particular mention, as being, in the opinion of many excellent judges, equal to that of Quin. In fact, these two celebrated actors appear to divide between them the honor of being the best Falstaffs of the last century, so difficult is it to decide on which of them the palm should be conferred. Quin was decidedly the superior in figure, voice, and countenance; and in the impudent dignity of the character, no one could even approach him. The external deficiencies of Henderson were supplied by a most excellent judgment; and in the gay levity and frolicksome humour which he displayed, he completely distanced all competi

tors.

Since the days of Henderson, we have had a variety of Falstaffs of all descriptions, good, bad, and indifferent. Among these, George Frederick Cooke is, perhaps, entitled to rank highest. Some few have been led to the performance of the character principally in consequence of their extraordinary bulk. Of these, the most remark