The theory that Shakespeare made Falstaff appear in his first draft of Henry V, so that our present text of that play is much revised and thereby confused, seems to be accepted now by most of the competent authorities; indeed to be regarded as the most positive result of Dover Wilson's very detailed work on the Falstaff trilogy, and therefore as the main support for a narrow view of Falstaff in general. I want in this essay to ask the reader to look at the whole position again. Whether Shakespeare changed his mind about Henry V is perhaps not very important, but it gives a definite point to start from; and I think it is time someone pointed out how very weak the evidence for this theory is.

To be sure, the evidence offered is imposingly various; from the Epilogue of II Henry IV, from some historical possibilities about censorship, and from the text of Henry V itself; but I think it breaks down all round. The relevant part of the Epilogue says: