University of Virginia Library

In addition to the unlikelihood of Po. being used as an abbreviation in the text and becoming confused with Pe., Dr. Peter Davison, the editor of the New Penguin edition, points out that in direct address Hal calls Poins Ned. However, since the speech-prefixes for Peto appear twice before his name comes in the text, it is not probable that a confusion about the name in the Prince's address caused the substitution. Instead, one would need to hypothesize that because of the mistake he had made in the speech-prefixes a conscientious compositor substituted Peto's name for Poins's in Hal's speech. Not only does this require double error by extension, but also it will not explain the appearance of Peto for Poins in III.iii. Thus it is difficult to take seriously any hypothesis that the substitution was created by an error.

His absence from the direction for the Prince's entrance need not be significant. Although Bardolph is specified as entering with Falstaff at the start of the scene, the group entrance in II.iv of Falstaff, Bardolph, Peto, and Gadshill is noted only as 'Enter Falstaffe.'

Bowers, "The Copy for Shakespeare's Julius Cœsar," South Atlantic Bulletin, 43 (November 1978), 23-36.

Poins seems to be socially and professionally a considerable distance above the hangers-on Bardolph and Peto. His high spirits and superior intelligence make him a suitable companion-attendant to Prince Hal and it is not shocking to contemplate him as a competent officer in the war. (Peto's lieutenancy is Falstaff's creation and is meant to be comic.) Moreover, how Hal's servant Peto, with whom he must ride thirty miles before dinner at the end of III.iii, becomes in IV.ii Falstaff's lieutenant although Hal has not seen Falstaff before this encounter is not to be rationalized.

It would be amusing if Shakespearean revision had later inserted this much debated soliloquy in order to provide the necessary time for Poins's change; but of course there is no evidence, Worcester is not necessarily the part doubled, and any such proposition cannot be seriously advanced. Nevertheless, this soliloquy is necessary if the actor of Worcester had doubled as Poins.

We know so little about doubling in Shakespeare's company as to be uncertain how much the tradition would allow a switch from Worcester to Poins, back to Worcester, then to Poins, then finally to Worcester instead of the single interlude offered by the part of Mortimer or of Glendower, which would resemble the interlude where Cassius doubles as Ligarius. If one is right in suspecting that the back and forth shuttling was to be avoided, then Glendower may become the prime candidate (see footnote 12 below).

If Worcester had doubled as Poins, Worcester's entry at the beginning of IV.i would, of course, have made it impossible for Poins to have left the stage with Hal substantially at the end of III.iii. However, if Poins had made his exit at the command 'to horse, to horse,' there might well have been time for a change of costume. Indeed, the exit of Poins-Peto at this point is preferable to one with Hal after his instructions to Falstaff, if one wants to be scrupulous, since it would be one of the attendant's duties to see that the horses were ready for the journey. The line at which Poins-Peto should exit is an editorial option, for the Quarto is silent.

Indeed, a switch back to Poins in III.iii would have emphasized the inexplicable switch to Peto at the end of II.iv.

W. W. Greg, The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (2nd ed. 1951), pp. 128-129; Alice Walker, Textual Problems in the First Folio (1953), p. 111. Of course it could have been the promptbook itself, but the characteristics of the Quarto by no means encourage such a speculation. Moreover, that a promptbook would be sent to the printer at this early date in the play's history is most improbable.

It must be admitted that the case for an intermediate transcript is not so certain as with Julius Cœsar, for the 1 Henry IV Quarto is much more irregular in respect to such details as the forms of speech-prefixes that were made entirely regular by the scribe in Julius Cœsar. The absence, also, of many necessary exits and of characters in entrances suggests that any fair copy had been pretty much a literal one, attested also by the variant forms of Falstaff's and even of Hal's name. The matter needs further study, especially to test Dr. Walker's impression (for it is little more) that some stiffness in the dialogue associates the Quarto copy with the scribe who prepared the manuscript on which the Folio 2 Henry IV was based. If Shakespeare's manuscript did not require a fair copy before the company could begin to prepare the play for production, then the theatrical alterations could have been made in his working papers and the need for an intermediate transcript between his foul papers and the promptbook would be removed. In this connection, of course, one must consider the revision of the names involving Falstaff and perhaps some rewriting also as a consequence. The matter is obscure and subject chiefly to speculation: the strong evidence for a transcript in Julius Cœsar is wanting in 1 Henry IV even though an overview of the whole situation might well suggest the need.

Possibly one other change has been made in the speech-prefix assignments. It is interesting that the direction that follows Hal's order to search Falstaff's pockets reads, 'He searcheth his pocket, and findeth certaine papers.' This he is not the Prince, of course, but Peto. The next lines are:

The literal interpretation of the Prince's line 'Lets see what they be, read them' would take it not that the Prince reaches out for the papers to examine them himself, but instead that the revelation of what they are will result from Peto's reading them aloud. Yet the lack of a speech-prefix before the inventory and before Hal's subsequent speech, 'O monstrous! . . .' indicates that Hal reads, in contradiction to his order to Peto. Some early editors trusted to the command more than to the lack of speech-prefix and emended to have Poins-Peto read the list. Their instinct may have been sound, for there is no problem whether Poins or the Prince reads. But such a problem could exist were Peto the reader. His speech, we may suppose, was strongly accented. More to the point, even if he were not understood to be illiterate by the audience's perception of his speech and persona, it would scarcely be in character for Peto to read off the list without stumbling and halting and thus to little purpose getting in the way of the comic climax. It is possible, therefore, to speculate that the transfer of the reading of the list from Poins to Hal was made when Peto was substituted in this scene. If so, an editor should restore Poins as the reader.

That he might have had a talent for assuming a Welsh accent is a possible speculation, especially since the role of the weak but charming Mortimer requires no special actor. (It seems clear that Cassius doubled Ligarius not because of the shortage of available actors but because of the physique of this one actor.) On the whole, as a pure guess Glendower remains the best bet, and for special reasons.

That the Page would be a mute in III.ii is no argument against his presence, given the fact that his importance steadily diminishes after I.ii and II.ii so that he has only two speeches of four and five words respectively in II.iv and is a mute character in V.i,iii,v; nor is the lack of a formal entrance for him with Falstaff any real bar given the fact that he is skipped in V.i in the Quarto, (but not in the Folio) although he is addressed by Shallow and must be present. (This is to assume that the suitable Folio direction in III.ii bringing him on with Bardolph is unauthoritative.) The most serious objection to his appearance in this scene is the contrast with V.i where Shallow first welcomes Falstaff, then Bardolph, and finally the Boy. In III.ii, on the other hand, Shallow greets Bardolph and the "one with him" as "honest gentlemen," an unlikely expression if the Boy were in fact Bardolph's companion as in the Folio. Then, when Falstaff enters (with no indication of a companion in the direction), Shallow welcomes only him, a strong suggestion that the Boy has not entered as well. If we pursue this hint, we may notice that the Boy accompanies Falstaff alone only in I.ii where the Quarto direction describes him as "his page"; in II.i, as "the boy" he comes on with Falstaff and Bardolph; but in II.ii he enters as "boy" with Bardolph and as "Bardolph's boy" also alone with Bardolph in II.iv. There is something in favor of the argument, then, that since he cannot follow Bardolph in III.ii (Q direction and Shallow's form of greeting), it is less likely that an entrance shortly with Falstaff has been inadvertently omitted for a mute character (the Page's apparent transfer to Bardolph once his function as an instigator of wit in Falstaff has been satisfied, and also his omission from Shallow's welcome to Falstaff). Quite properly, the Boy does not appear with Falstaff during the battle in IV.iii, nor does he enter with Bardolph when, the battle over, Falstaff proposes to return through Gloucestershire to revisit Shallow. Nevertheless, the Page is present in V.i when the visit is made: the Boy has not been left behind in London after II.iv while the rest go to the wars. It is a legitimate question, then, why if he is present on the return he was not in the party on the advance. Since speculation is alone possible, no entirely satisfactory answer can perhaps be advanced. Simple inadvertence is always possible here, for Shakespeare must have had his reasons for not bringing him on with Bardolph, and there is some evidence, certainly, in Shallow's greeting, and just possibly in the direction, that he did not accompany Falstaff. In fact, the substitution of the common soldier as Bardolph's companion may be as significant for the Boy as it is for Peto. That is, the Boy has no place in the wars, the audience knows, and to introduce him on the way to battle might have risked a break with the audience's sense of propriety and thus with the illusion of reality. But in peace, there is no risk in his following Falstaff again, though as a mute. It would be a rare audience that would notice the discrepancy, or—if noticing—care.

The exact relationship of 2 Henry IV to Part One is much debated but never decided. One school of thought has it that Shakespeare had planned the two parts from the start as a ten-act play. Other critics more realistically believe that the popularity of Part One provoked the sequel, which on the evidence of its single quarto was not markedly popular. A middle ground is suggested by Harold Jenkins in The Structural Problem in Shakespeare's Henry the Fourth (1956). The question is not crucial here, for insofar as the concern is with the Falstaff-Peto-Page equation, it seems clear that the structure of the comic action in 2 Henry IV takes account of the theatrically altered text of Part One and therefore has detached Peto from Falstaff.