There are two other passages in Shakspeare's plays that relate to the beaver, which it will be best to insert here for the purpose of avoiding confusion, and to afford likewise the means of assembling together the various and discordant opinions of the commentators. These are, 1. in King Henry IV. Part II. Act IV. Scene 1, "their beavers down;" and 2. in Hamlet, Act I. Scene 2, "he wore his beaver up."
In the first of these passages Dr. Warburton would read with his beaver up; and he remarks that "the beaver is only the visiere of the helmet, which, let down, covers the face. When the soldier was not upon action, he wore it up, so that his face might be seen, but when upon [in] action, it was let down to cover and secure the face." All this is correct, except that the beaver is certainly not the visor.
Dr. Johnson says, "there is no need of all this note; for beaver may be a helmet." This too is very just; the beaver, a part only of the helmet strictly speaking, is frequently used to express a helmet generally. Thus, in the first scene of the third part of King Henry VI., "I cleft his beaver with a downright blow." The latter part of the doctor's note was unnecessary, and its inference apparently wrong.
Mr. Malone remarks that "Dr. Warburton seems not to have observed, that Vernon only says, he saw young Harry, not that he saw his face." But surely, Dr Warburton having contended for the reading beaver up, could not have misconceived Vernon's meaning as above.
Dr. Lort contents himself with distinguishing and explaining the beaver and visor. He is however wrong in stating that the beaver was let down to enable the wearer to drink.
Mr. Malone's second note relating to Hamlet, will be considered in the third passage.
In the second passage, Mr. Malone remarks that the beaver "is confounded both here and in Hamlet with visor, or used for helmet in general," but that "Shakspeare is not answerable for any confusion on this subject, as he used beaver in the same sense in which it was used by all his contemporaries." The latter part of this note applies very justly to the first passage, beaver on, where it is used generally for a helmet, but not to the present; beavers down being perfectly accurate. It is submitted that the former part of the note, which relates to a supposed confusion both here and in Hamlet between beaver and visor, is not quite accurate, as may hereafter appear.
In the third passage Mr. Malone says, "though beaver properly signified that part of the helmet which was let down, to enable the wearer to drink, Shakspeare always uses the word as denoting that part of the helmet which, when raised up, exposed the face of the wearer; and such was the popular signification of the word in his time. In Bullokar's English expositor, 8vo, 1616, beaver is defined thus:—'In armour it signifies that part of the helmet which may be lifted up to take the breath more freely.'" On this passage Mr. Malone had also before remarked that Shakspeare confounded the beaver and visor; for in Hamlet Horatio says that he saw the old king's face, because he wore his beaver up; and yet the learned commentator inadvertently quotes Bullokar's definition, which is adverse to his own opinion. Another observation that suggests itself on Mr. Malone's note on Hamlet is, that Shakspeare does not always use beaver to denote that part of the helmet which, when raised up, exposed the face of the wearer; because we have just seen that he sometimes, as other writers do, applies it to the whole of the helmet.
And lastly, as to preceding notes; the present writer had, in defending Shakspeare's accuracy, expressed himself in most faulty and inaccurate terms, when he said that "the beaver was as often made to lift up as to let down." A great deal of confusion has arisen from the want of due attention to these words.
There is a chance that the reader, unless he have paid more attention to what has already been stated than it perhaps deserves, may have got into a labyrinth; from which it shall be the endeavour of the rest of this note to extricate him.