182 C. F. Tucker Brooke, 



to Marlowe considerably in excess of the percentage of eleven-syllable 

 lines, whereas in all the work ascribed to Shakespeare the proportion 

 is reversed. The ratio of run-on lines bears out the same division 

 with two easily explainable irregularities. Normally Marlowe paused 

 at the close of nearly every line even in his latest plays. In the 

 Contention and True Tragedy, only about five percent of the lines 

 run on ; in Edward II and The Massacre at Paris only about seven 

 percent.^ Shakespeare's percentage of run-on lines, however, even 

 in so early a play as Richard III, is over thirteen. Apparently, 

 therefore, we should expect something over the ten percent of run- 

 on lines in the additional matter in 2 Henry VI, and considerably 

 more than the seven and a half percent of J Henry VI. However, 

 this exception is only superficial. The figures are based on the 

 total number of lines added or materially altered in the 1623 edition, 

 but the opportunity for the reviser to insert run-on Hnes occurred 

 almost exclusively in new passages extending to several verses. 

 In 3 Henry VI, especially, the reviser's work consists very largely 

 of single new lines, almost necessarily end-stopped, because not closely 

 consecutive with the old matter ; and of old lines rewritten, where 

 the original pauses were for the most part retained. If the per- 

 centages of run-on lines in the supposedly Shakespearean part of 

 2 and 3 Henry VI were based entirely upon the number of lines 

 where the reviser had a fair opportunity of arranging verse pause 

 according to his own ear, the proportion would be found very mate- 

 rially in excess of that given in the table. 



The figures in the table contain, indeed, only one serious discrep- 

 ancy. That occurs in the ratio of pyrrhic fifth feet in the Contention 

 and in the additional matter of 2 Henry VI respectively. Since Mar- 

 lowe uses the mannerism in question much more frequently than 

 Shakespeare, one would expect the percentages of seven for the 

 Contention and eleven for the " new " matter to be reversed. Rules 

 relating to metrical tests are doubtless particularly subject to ex- 

 ceptions, and it may be, of course, that the irregularity here is only 

 accidental. It is worth noting, however, that this apparent dis- 

 crepancy lends weight to the inference, which on other grounds 

 amounts to practical certainty, that the 1254 hnes printed in the 

 Contention give a much abbreviated and corrupted version of Mar- 

 lowe's manuscript, whereas the large number of new and altered 



^ It seems almost certain that the relatively high percentage of run-on 

 lines in The Jew of Malta is due to the serious alteration which that play 

 suffered between Marlowe's death and its pubUeation in 1633. 



