as he comes by' (V. v. 5-7). After all these fond hopes have toppled over in the King's terrible rebuke, Sir John acknowledges the blow in muttering to his late host the very secret he wishes him to forget: "Master Shallow, I owe you a thousand pound" (V. v. 78). When Falstaff himself so fumbles with his wit, verily the catastrophe has come.

V

If the plot of the Second Part, then, centres about Falstaff, and its main theme is the struggle between Falstaff and his enemies for the favor, or the very soul, of Prince Hal, a struggle that begins in the second scene of the play and ends with the Chief Justice's notable victory in the last scene, on what type of framework is the plot built? This question has already been answered, I believe, by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, in discussing "The Story 'of Falstaff." Concluding his study of the two Parts, and noting particularly the Prayer for the Queen at the end of the Second Part, a device he attributes to the interlude, inherited from the morality, Sir Arthur adds:

The whole of the business is built on the old Morality structure, imported through the Interlude. Why, it might be labelled after the style of a Morality title Contentio inter Virtutem et Vitium de anima Principis.14

To a similar conclusion, at least, so far as Falstaff is concerned, comes a young American scholar, Mr. J. W. Spargo. Dwelling on the popularity of the Morality type of play even during Elizabeth's reign, and the resemblance of Sir John to the Morality figure, Spargo sums up his contention:

To recapitulate, then, I believe that Falstaff was understood by Shakespeare's audience as representing a combination of Gluttony and Lechery, and that the Chief Justice was equally understood as Justice, or Virtue in general, with Hal as the bone of contention, because (1) of the strong morality play tradition extant in England; (2) of the evidence in Hal's first speech (1 Hy. IV, I. ii. 1-13); (3) of the evidence in Hal's first soliloquy (1 Hy. IV. I. ii. 218 ff.); (4) of the reciprocal relationships between Hal, Falstaff, and the Chief Justice, which are paralleled in many Moralities, as noted above; (5) of the final fate of Falstaff.15

14 Shakespeare's Workmanship, 1918, p. 127.

15 "An Interpretation of Falstaff," in Washington University Studies, ix, 133, April, 1922. Spargo mentions Sir Arthur's article, but not his

One more piece of evidence that Shakespeare was thinking of the Moral Plays in the writing of the Second Part is overlooked by both Quiller Couch and Spargo: the list of characters that Shakespeare uses that are not to be found in Holinshed and are not taken over from the First Part. These are:

With the single exception of Davie, do not these names step straight out of the Moralties? No other history play of Shakepeare do I recall in which this descent is so clear.

My own position is somewhat different from that of either critic just quoted. I am not contending that Falstaff was considered by the Elizabethan audience as a definite incarnation of Sin, deadly or otherwise, though I believe certain elements inherited from the Morality figures went into the creation of his uncommonly real character. Nor do I see clear traces of the Morality influence in the First Part save in Hal's characterization of Falstaff as "that reverend Vice, that grey Iniquity, that father Ruffian, that Vanity in years." 18 But throughout that play Prince Hal is entirely too active to be Man's Soul, or a mere "bone of contention." Moreover, the delightfully romantic Hotspur belongs not at all to the Morality atmosphere. Again, it must be remembered that the entire plot turns on Hal and Hotspur.

16

But the Second Part tells another story. Hal is remarkably passive until the very last Act. Falstaff, though still real, seems the lineal descendant of Gluttony and Lechery, intensified more than ever; of Sloth, in his tardiness to fight;17 of Avarice, in his

suggestion of Morality influence. It is only fair to add that I started out to prove Morality influence in the Second Part before I was aware that I had been anticipated by each of these scholars.

16 First Part, II. iv. 498-499. Cited by Spargo.

17 Compare the Chief Justice's words to Sir John, II, i. 73-74:

"Doth this become your place, your time and business?
You should have been well on your way to York."

Note also that despite the haste of the "dozen captains," they are kept

financial dealings with the Hostess, the drafted soldiers, and Master Shallow; of Pride, in his talk immediately before his fall. Although no one could so misjudge the old knight as to find in him personified Envy or Wrath, he may well enfigure just five of the Seven Deadly Sins. The cold John of Lancaster joins with the Chief Justice in his zealous pursuit of Virtue, and in the end they together snatch Hal as a brand from the burning and piously provide a limbo for Vice. Our sympathy or hostility toward the forces of Light depends on our own attitude towards the spirit of Puritanism.

In general, then, I believe that Shakespeare knew what he was about in the composition of both of these plays. In them we have, not a single ten-act play, though the titles would give that impression, but two plays written with different purposes in view. The First Part, based probably on a misinterpretation of a passage in Holinshed, sets forth the conflict between Hal and Hotspur, culminating at Shrewsbury. The Second Part, "originally unpremeditated," but written in response to a public demand for more of Falstaff, depicts the conflict between Sir John and the Chief Justice, after the manner of the Moralities, for the soul of Prince Hal. In its essence this resembles the contest in Twelfth Night between Sir Toby and Malvolio, with a different conclusion. But here we have not the typical structure of comedy; we have rather the framework of the Moral Play, such as Marlowe used in Dr. Faustus, yet with far more care for the unity of structure. The University of Texas.

waiting for Falstaff, and that Lancaster alludes to "these tardy tricks of yours" (IV. iii. 31). But Spargo has strangely overlooked evidence of Sloth in the very passage he quotes from the First Part, where the Prince, accusing Falstaff of "sleeping upon benches in the afternoon," adds, "What a devil hast thou to do with the time of the day?" (I. ii. 4 ff.).

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE TEXT OF

RICHARD III

BY ROBERT W. BABCOCK

2

The making of the best text of Richard III" is "the hardest puzzle in Shakspere-editing,"1 declared Furnivall. "It is certainly fortunate," Furness corroborates, "that very few of Shakespeare's plays are furnished with such a number of sources whence the text is drawn, or such a mosaic text, when finally obtained, as Richard the Third." And the old Cambridge editors: "The respective origin and authority of the first Quarto and the first Folio texts of Richard III is perhaps the most difficult question which presents itself to an editor of Shakespeare . . In conclusion, we commend a study of the text of Richard III to those, if such there be, who imagine that it is possible, by the exercise of critical skill, to restore with certainty what Shakespeare exactly wrote." 3 With such encouragement we proceed immediately to the task, for has not Mr. Pollard recently remarked that the first Quarto is "a copy of the play slightly cut down and altered for stage representation," and that "a copy of this edition [the Sixth Quarto], with additions and corrections, made from a transcript of the original, formed the basis of the Folio text?"5 To question again, has Mr. Pollard finally answered the call of the old Cambridge editors?

In preliminary we shall have to reject Mr. J. M. Robertson's ideas, for the moment at least. Suppose we admit that almost all of the play may be assigned to Marlowe on the basis of style, phrase, vocabulary, and general matter. Mr. Robertson is not the first to make a suggestion of such import. Daniel declared as early as 1884 that Richard III " was not of Shakespeare's original

1 Century Shakspere, London, Cassell, 1908, Richard III, Introduction, p. 11.

p. v.

3

H. H. Furness, Jr., Variorum Richard III, Philadelphia, 1908, Preface,

3 Ibid., p. 434.

A. W. Pollard, Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, London, 1909, p. 22. P. 24.

5 Ibid.,

7

composition, but the work of the author, or authors, of the Henry VI series of plays; his part in this, as in those, being merely that of a reviser or rewriter." Mr. Pollard, of recent critics. noted in 1915 that Richard III was of Shakespeare's "journeymandays, when he was working in collaboration with others, or revising their work." 8 Only Sir Sidney Lee holds out: "In Richard III Shakespeare [was] working singlehanded"... The point of the matter is not to discover whether Marlowe or Shakespeare wrote Richard III, but rather, irrespective of who wrote it, what the correct, or most nearly correct, text is. "With the question of authorship," Daniel asserted, "I am not concerned; the relation of the Quarto and Folio versions is, after all, the most important matter connected with the play, for unless it can be settled on some reasonably certain basis, the difficulties in the way of a satisfactory settlement of the text itself are almost insuperable." 10

"this

There were six ante-Folio quartos of Richard III, all duly registered and hence, in Mr. Pollard's sense, all "good quartos": 11 1597, 1598, 1602, 1605, 1612, and 1622. Q 2 was the first to bear Shakespeare's name. Q3 noted an additional advertisement: "Newly augmented," yet, as Mr. Pollard has declared, edition contains no new matter " 12 (one stops to reflect a moment on Thomas Creede). In 1603, the assignment of the copyright passed from Andrew Wise to Mathew Lawe, who retained control through Quartos 4, 5, and 6. I have already suggested Mr. Pollard's conjecture as to the origin of Q 1. To repeat it in other words of the same critic, "The players, lest more plays should go the same way [Romeo and Juliet and Love's Labor Lost were pirated], sold to Andrew Wise, the right to print Richard III." 13

"Variorum Richard III, p. 448.

8 Shakespeare's Fight with the Pirates (1915 lectures), London, 1917, p. xxvi.

Life of Shakespeare, New York, 1916, p. 123.

10 Variorum Richard III, p. 448.

11 See J. Dover Wilson, Cambridge Shakespeare, The Tempest, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1921, p. xxx.

Note E. K. Chambers' attack on this edition in Review of English Studies, April, 1925, and B. A. P. Van Dam's comments in English Studies, VII (1925), 97.

19 Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, p. 22.

18 Shakespeare's Fight with the Pirates, p. 48.