T would seem at first thought that the relegation to another hand of such knotty problems as the comparative authority of the folio and the quarto texts of "Richard III," the influence or the share of Marlowe in its composition, and its precise chronological place in the series of Shakespeare's dramas, would make the task of furnishing a brief critical introduction to the play a matter of no great labour Whether, indeed, it is a matter of consequence may be doubted, in view of the fact that any note, essay, paper, monograph, or even treatise on a Shakespearean topic is but a drop in that vast ocean of criticism which fortunately has not yet submerged the broad continent of the dramatist's achievements and or consequence. fame. But that the task of criticising the play at all adequately involves considerable labour and perplexity on the part of the venturous critic admits of no doubt. “Richard III" is not only not an easy play to criticise; it is a very hard one. The textual and kindred problems have their æsthetic analogues. For example, the critic finds himself confronted by the fact that although "Richard III" is rarely ranked among the greater Shakesperean plays by modern readers, it was perhaps the most popular of all the plays with readers of the first half of the seventeenth century. There were six quarto editions between 1597 and 1623, the date of the first folio; there were two others within eleven years after that time. Counting the second folio of 1632, we find that "Richard III" was printed ten times within thirty-seven years, a test of contemporary popularity that is borne successfully by no other of Shakespeare's plays. Was this popularity due to the extraordinary favour then as now extended to the drama on the stage? Or was it due in considerable measure to the uncritical taste of the readers of Shakespeare's day? Or was it due, instead, to the fact that a vigorous, unsophisticated generation was better qualified than their less robust and more fastidious descendants to appreciate the work of a daring young playwright and poet? - But the æsthetic critic has other questions to consider and answer as best he may. He has to consider why "Richard III" is not a good enough play in the eyes of some critics to be accepted as truly and in the main Shakespeare's handiwork, and why in the eyes of other critics it is one of the great dramatist's most remarkable and admirably wrought performances. For example, although James Russell Lowell may have lived to modify some of the views he expressed about the drama in an address before the Edinburgh Philosophical Institution in 1883, afterwards published in his volume entitled "Latest Literary Essays," the fact remains that he seriously doubted Shakespeare's authorship of "Richard III in any proper and complete sense, and that he did so on grounds highly uncomplimentary to the style and substance of the play. On the other hand, critics like Ulrici see in the drama a conscious and admirable exposition of the part played by the ideal tyrant in human affairs; others, like Professor Moulton, see in it a consummate presentation of an ideal villain and a closely woven chain of Nemesis-actions in which private and public crimes meet with their just retribution. But not only do critics differ in their attitude toward the tragedy as a whole; they differ widely in their views with regard to individual scenes and characters. To Professor Dowden, for instance, the figure of Queen Margaret prophesying destruction to her foes is "introduced without historical warrant, but in a manner most impressive." To other critics both queens and the old duchess form a "scolding mob"; and even those writers who are timid in condemning the scenes of prophecy and vituperation from the point of view of literary effectiveness are often willing to admit that, when the drama is witnessed on the stage, these scenes scarcely come short of boring the average spectator. Although it is not unusual to discover in these more or less lyrical elements of the tragedy something that is akin in nature and function to the Greek choric ode, it is possible to wish that Shakespeare had exchanged his bereaved women, who utter so many ejaculations, for the page who serves as a sort of chorus in the old "True Tragedy of Richard III,” — a a play which is generally thought to have aided Shakespeare little if at all. Again, while students with a psychological bent have made much of the fact that in the Shakesperean play the ghosts of his victims visit Richard in his sleep, when his powerful nature is relaxed, others, like Lowell, standing in less reverential awe of the master, have not hesitated to declare that the spiritual visitants introduced by Shakespeare form "a childish procession." Perhaps no one has gone so far as to prefer Richard's account, in the "True Tragedy," of the ghosts that tormented him to the mechanically balanced denunciations and incitements that play such an important part at the close of "Richard III"; yet if any critic or reader should dare to express such a preference, there would be no occasion for wonder. From what has just been said it ought to be obvious that perhaps the most difficult and important task confronting the critical reader of "Richard III" is to endeavour to determine why such varying views have been taken of the drama and to find, if possible, a safe position between the two ranks of critics-between those who hold it to be an inferior production, and those who hold it to be a carefully wrought work of art. wrought work of art. It is almost needless to say that here, as nearly always in matters of criticism, both classes of critics will be found to have reason and taste on their respective sides, and that if we can separate the true from the false in their views, we shall probably find ourselves standing nearly midway between the extremes of depreciation and admiration. The reason for much of this divergence of critical opinions with regard to "Richard III" is not far to seek. It is to be discovered in the fact that, viewed in the light of the highest poetry that is to say, in the light of the "grand style" and of a nobly philosophical "criticism of life" - the play is found wanting; but that viewed in the light of dramaturgic skill exhibited in construction of plot and in presentation of one dominating character, the play is, to say the least, a masterly achievement. In other words, here, as so often in criticism of the poetic drama, one set of critics and readers not finding the desiderated poetry, forgets to look for evidences of dramaturgic skill and wonders why the play should have ever seemed great to any one; the other set of critics and readers, but more frequently spectators, perceiving the dramaturgic skill or its effects, remains satisfied with what has been given, and does not demand poetry of supreme or even great excellence. That "Richard III" is not a great poetic drama in the sense that "Othello" is will scarcely be denied by any one capable of reading through the two plays. Even if great |