and understanding for the “simple men” who mostly act from foolishness, not wickedness. What his original words must have been is, moreover, clearly pointed to by Doll’s later remark: “Thou hast done more with thy good words than all they could with their weapons” (II, iv, 202). Threats one certainly would not call “good words.” And wherever else his speech is mentioned, his “eloquence” (II, iv, 217) and his “persuasion” (III, i, 96) are being praised. That allows the conclusion that the tendency of the original speech—and perhaps the ideas too—were not very different from the later one. In all probability, then, this passage, like others in the play, was simply worked over on the old lines.[1] If it be objected that this revision may have been done by Shakespeare nevertheless, one wonders what the reasons may have been. Consideration for the censor does at any rate not appear plausible.
Moreover, if it were not for the handwriting, a great number of people would certainly not hesitate to ascribe also other parts of the play to Shakespeare. Simpson, who started the whole discussion, felt sure that Shakespeare was the author not of one scene only, and who will deny that the style of III, ii, 1–20 has indeed some resemblance to Shakespeare’s? (Compare “I, in my father’s life, To take prerogative and tithe of knees From elder kinsmen,” etc. See Engl. Stud. 46, p. 238.) This makes it more probable still that it is wrong to stare spellbound at the handwriting. As regards other passages of the play, too, the authors of Shakespeare’s Hand do not always identify handwriting and author. One ought to do so also in this case, i.e. not only in the “147 lines,” but also in other passages to recognise a man who sometimes—although not very strongly—reminds us of Shakespeare. Who was it? What has been stated above about the close connection of this play with the Wolsey plays, and also the Oldcastle plays, makes it appear probable that some at least of the authors of these plays must have had a share in it. The claim of Munday seems to be settled. That Drayton co-operated is extremely likely, and some passages could
- ↑ It will be objected that the revision certainly cannot have been made by the original author, or somebody familiar with the details of the play, because the reviser knew so little of the dramatis personæ that he in several cases simply put “other” before the speeches and left it to the final redactor to put in the right name. But I am afraid we have made too much out of these occasional “others.” On closer scrutiny one sees that these very remarks have no particular significance, and might indeed be made by any of the crowd, so that it might be without damage left to the final redactor or to the stage manager himself to put them into the mouth of somebody. Want of knowledge of the plot and the rest of the play is certainly not indicated in this way.
