A Vindication of Parolles

Abstract

HE volume of criticism of All's Well is small indeed,' but what there is devotes itself largely to disparagement. QuillerCouch considers play one of worst, and Nicoll asserts, The story is nauseous and disgusting. Coleridge may declare Helena Shakespeare's loveliest character, but to others she is thief of lust (A. Lang), or a nymphomaniac (H. B. Charlton). Lavache is unsavory (W. W. Lawrence), and Bertram anything from ill-natured (A. P. Rossiter) to degenerate (M. C. Bradbrook). But accolade of abuse is given to Parolles. A unanimity of agreement prevails.2 He is vicious (G. Krapp), licentious (Wilson Knight), wordy cozening squirt, bedizened scoundrelly dandiprat (H. N. Hudson)-and much more. When his character is not blackened, he is variously accused of being Bertram's evil tempter (J. A. Barish), evil genius (E. M. W. Tillyard), pimp and seducer (Eckhoff), and corrupting influence (H. S. Wilson). Certainly he is a general offense to Lafeu, and a cat to Bertram, a vile rascal to Diana, and an infinite and endless liar to Second Lord. True. But these are characters judging Parolles from their fictional points of view, and they are justified in their appraisal. But did Shakespeare intend his audience to revile him so? Is Parolles made of same mold as Don John or Dionyza, who have no redeeming qualities? Is he a genuine Vice, malevolent and odious? If so, then Falstaff is another, and worse. He would make of crown prince a highwayman; he misuse[s] King's press damnably, cozens his landlady, and Shallow, of money, declares, when he assumes his Hal, now Henry V, will favor him, that the laws of England are at my commandment . . . and woe to my Lord chief-justice. Yet we go to theater to see him and not history play, not Hal, not Hotspur. We laugh at and with Falstaff because as Alfred Harbage explains,