compositions,-to utilize the raw material that he had found in the works of other writers.

There is a tradition that he wrote "The Merry Wives" in obedience to the command of Queen Elizabeth, who had expressed the wish to see Falstaff in love. This was first promulgated by John Dennis (1657-1734), in the preface to his comedy of "The Comical Gallant, or the Amours of Sir John Falstaff" (an alteration of "The Merry Wives," in which the original play is greatly changed, which was acted, without success, at Drury Lane, early in 1702). Dennis gave no authority for the tradition that he published with reference to "The Merry Wives," but it is conjectured that he derived it from Dryden, with whom he had been acquainted, and it is still further conjectured that Dryden derived it from Davenant, who was a boy of eleven years when Shakespeare died, and who lived to become conversant with actors who had associated with Shakespeare and who could communicate recollections of him. Dennis says:

"This comedy was written at her [Queen Elizabeth's] command, and by her direction, and she was so eager to see it acted that she commanded it to be finished in fourteen days; and was afterward, as tradition tells us, very well pleased at the representation."

No evidence exists to establish the truth of this tradition; yet it has been accepted by many authoritative Shakespeare editors. Dennis subsequently reduced the time of composition to "ten days." It is maintained, with truth, that the comedy falls below Shakespeare's poetic standard, and that it trifles with the great humorous character of Falstaff, which he had already so sumptuously drawn, and therefore that it might well have been "written to order," hastily, and within a few days. The fact that it is written almost entirely in prose, which is contrary to Shakespeare's custom, lends a color to this assumption. Furthermore, Falstaff certainly is a much less massive and complex character in the comedy than in the history; and it is difficult to understand how, in the absence of extraneous inducement, a great literary artist should choose, in the natural order of mental experience, to distort the consistency and lower the intellectual tone of one of his best creations. Perhaps it is true that Shakespeare wrote this play only because the great command of his sovereign o'erswayed the authority of his judgment. Students who deem the play an indifferent specimen of Shakespeare's power, and who therefore wish to find for the poet a valid excuse for having written it, will accept the explanation made by Dennis and re-echoed by Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Gildon, and

others. Those who read the play as it stands in the quartos may well conclude that its author, if indeed he was responsible for that production, stood in some need of excuse. On the other hand, those students who read it as it stands in the Folio of 1623, and who approve it as a roughly humorous creation, remarkable for ease of invention, variety of character, sprightliness of spirit, and a delicious rural atmosphere, will find no difficulty in ascribing it to a natural impulse of the author's genius; and they need not trouble themselves about any vague tradition with which its story has been garnished. Although the play relates to the lewdness of an old sensualist, and is, therefore, intrinsically and ineradicably vulgar in subject, yet its treatment of that subject is strong, sensible, and humorous. If it depicts the grossness and the craft of animal desire, it does not omit to defeat, humiliate, and ridicule what it thus depicts, while it is measurably redeemed from reproach by its healthfulness of moral quality and influence, and it is brilliant in dramatic and literary attributes. The continuous sprightliness of its dialogue and the joyous physical vitality with which it is animated would alone suffice to maintain it alike in popular acceptance and intellectual esteem. While noting that "the conduct of this drama is deficient" in some respects, "its general power,'

wrote Dr. Johnson, "that power by which all works of genius should finally be tried, is such that perhaps it never yet had reader or spectator who did not think it too soon at an end."

ACTORS OF FALSTAFF IN THE COMEDY-BRITISH STAGE.

In such old theatrical records as have survived relative to impersonations of Falstaff there is little specific description of the manner in which the part was played by any actor. Mention occurs of the different degrees and qualities of humor exhibited by different players, and also of the effects caused by different performances and of the general impression left upon various critical minds. With regard to the ideal and delineation of the character,-whether any marked discrimination was made between Falstaff as drawn in the History and Falstaff as drawn in the Comedy, there is, practically, no testimony. The list of prominent actors who have appeared on the British Stage as Falstaff, in "The Merry Wives of Windsor," includes Thomas Betterton, 1704; Anthony Boheme, 1720; James Quin, 1720; Dennis Delane, 1743; Edward Shuter, 1758; John Henderson, 1777; Charles Lee Lewes, 1784; Thomas Ryder, 1786; Mrs. Webb, 1786; John Fawcett, 1796; George

Frederick Cooke, 1804; William Dowton, 1824; Mrs. Glover, 1833; George Bartley, 1840; Samuel Phelps, 1848; James Henry Hackett, 1851; Benjamin Webster, 1851; John Ryder, 1861; James R. Anderson, 1884; Herbert Beerbohm-Tree, 1888; George R. Weir, 1900, and Oscar Ashe, 1911. Betterton's performance was first given, in March, 1704, before Queen Anne and her Court; on May 16, following, for his benefit, he repeated it, at Lincoln's Inn Fields. Mrs. Webb had been first known as Miss Child, then as Mrs. Day. She was a good actress, in such parts as Mrs. Hardcastle and Mrs. Malaprop. She is mentioned in one old record as having "distinguished herself in many corpulent and grotesque characters. A woman playing Falstaff would necessarily be repulsive. Mrs. Webb's obesity appears to have been her sole qualification for the part. She died in 1793. Mrs. Glover (1781-1850), originally Julia Betterton, fancifully said to have been descended from the renowned Thomas Betterton of the age of Queen Anne, possessed great and versatile ability as comedian. She was, in youth, very beautiful,-her person tall, her features regular, her eyes blue and large, her hair dark, her complexion fair. She once tried to act Hamlet, and failed. Her appearance as Falstaff, effected at the Haymarket Theatre, for her benefit, appears to have been made by way of pro

as a