rather than with the comedy, for instance, of the "Scornful Lady?" And is not Fletcher, although he produced some noble tragic drama, especially the master of bright Romantic comedy? General characteristics, however, have not been considered sufficient, and attempts have been made during the last twenty years definitely to assign to each writer a distinct share in each play. In some cases of literary co-operation this is a problem of comparatively easy solution. When a Richelieu has a play produced by a brigade of five known. writers, each of whom takes one act, even a small critical stone may serve to shatter the Colossus and enable us to examine at leisure the fragments of gold, iron, or clay. But when the conditions of co-operation are wholly unknown, the task is one which calls for the subtlest and most delicate discrimination and the widest range of knowledge; nothing, indeed, short of the touch of the spear of a critical Ithuriel will serve to cause the writers to reveal themselves in their true form. And even granting that considerations of style -using this word in its broadest sense-were wholly decisive as far as the act of writing were concerned, the thoughtful student would demand more. It is barely conceivable that any critic could select from the "Ancient Mariner" the few lines actually contributed by Wordsworth. But what art would enable him to trace that poet in the suggestion of the main motive of the whole, and in the weirdly imaginative detail of navigating the ship by dead men? The influence, so familiar in real life, of one mind upon another, inspiring, restraining, dominating, is it not far too subtle to be analysed? A writer may produce under such influence work which is essentially his own, and yet different in many respects from that produced at any other period of his literary life. And supposing that we were quite clear as to what are exactly the conclusively distinctive marks of the style of two writers who work together, is there not always a certain domain of "No man's land" which has no distinctive character, and might be allotted to either? Peculiarities of literary style, again, are by no means uniformly maintained, even in the treatment of similar themes. And this being so, a different theme, it must be allowed, may at any time call for a wholly different style. It may be doubted if the "Faithful Shepherdess" would be assigned to Fletcher if it were not known to be his; and it may be further doubted whether all the plays now considered to be by him, owing to the external evidence we possess, would be so adjudged were this evidence wanting. The consideration of these questions is the more involved because it is known that Fletcher's work is found united, not only with that of Beaumont, but with that of several other writers. One case of such co-operation, even before Beaumont's death, has been mentioned. After that event, we have the documentary evidence of Herbert's "Office Book" that the "Night-Walker" was written with Shirley, and that Rowley took part in the "Maid in the Sir Aston Cokain, in his Epitaph on Massinger, speaks of that poet's association with Fletcher-" Plays did they write together, were great friends"; and another portion of the Lines to Charles Cotton, from which previous quotation has been made, declares that- "Beaumont (in these many) writ in few Mr. Dyce, half a century ago, distinguished nine plays as written by Fletcher and the three authors above mentioned. Further study has tended to increase the number; and the main feature of modern criticism may be said to have been the attempt to trace the hand of Massinger, whose style presents some marked peculiarities, in a number of the plays previously assigned to Fletcher alone, as well as in a few of those formerly considered as written with Beaumont. "The Double Marriage," "The Prophetess," "The Sea Voyage," "The Spanish Curate," "The Elder Brother,' and "The Custom of the Country," are six plays in which there is most reason to see the hand of Massinger together with that of Fletcher.* A complete list of Beaumont and Fletcher's works will be found in the Bibliography under Fletcher. The classification there adopted is based on the work of Dyce, and an endeavour has been made to trace the history of modern criticism by stating in chronological order the chief opinions advanced since Dyce's edition. External evidence is often wholly unreliable; the name given on the title-page of one edition often differs from that on another; prologues and epilogues of different dates imply now one, now two authors; allusions in contemporary authors are sometimes vague. Internal evidence, therefore, has to be sought. The peculiarities of Fletcher's style which have been relied on are the following: I. Metrical looseness. a. An unusual fondness for "double endings; 70 per cent. of his lines are said to be of this character. Massinger, who approaches him most nearly, has 40 to 50 per cent. (Oliphant.) b. The added syllable is often accented, and therefore cannot be slurred over. (See p. 204 for a passage which may illustrate these points.) 66 c. A love of short syllables, which sometimes give a dactyllic canter" to the verse: e.g., "Down with 'em; down with 'ěm down with the gates." (Loyal Subject IV. vi.) d. Several of these short syllables are made to take the place, metrically, of one long one, and lines of 12, 13, 14, and even 15 syllables are found. Even allowing for the corruption of the text, this is noticeable. II. Metrical stiffness. 90 per cent. of Fletcher's verse, it is said, has a pause at the end of the line ("end stopt"). In this one characteristic, therefore, he returns to the earlier form of blank verse. (See p. 203.) III. A scant use of rhyme and prose. The latter is not needed, as, owing to the liberties Fletcher takes, his "loose' verse lends Among the dramas known to have been written by Fletcher alone, Tragedy has but a small share; yet "Bonduca" and "Valentinian," the two plays of this character which he did produce, are noble, dignified, and eloquent, but, like all that Fletcher wrote, appeal to the head rather than to the heart: we "Bonduca," however, contains The British princess who gives Fletcher's one scene of true pathos. itself to all the requirements of conversational ease. (As a "test," the absence of prose is of little or no value.) IV. Rhetorical repetition: l.g., "And a woman, a woman beat 'em, Nennius; a weak woman, a woman beat these Romans. (Bonduca, Act I. Sc. i.) V. Peculiarities of diction: e.g., a fondness for needless words, like "Sir" and "too," at the end of lines; favourite expletives, etc. These peculiarities (for which see Darley's Introduction, p. 38-44, ed. 1840; and Englische Studien XIV. p. 53, etc.) are gathered from works known to be by Fletcher, and have been used to attempt to determine his share in the plays he wrote with others. The application of such tests has manifest limitations: e.g., "The Knight of Malta " has been examined with the following results. Mr. Fleay, in 1874, pronounced the play to be by Fletcher and Beaumont ; in his "Manual," 1876, he assigned it to Fletcher and Middleton ; in the Englische Studien IX. p. 22 (1886) this became Fletcher and Field; while in 1889, Vol. XIII. p. 34, Massinger is added as a third author. (Mr. Fleay has also informed us that when he first wrote "Middleton" he meant "Field," and that, when thus venturing to pronounce upon literary style, he actually did not possess a copy of Middleton!-Eng. St. IX. p. 24.) Mr. R. Boyle retains Beaumont's name, and finds his work associated with that of Fletcher and Massinger. Mr. Bullen wholly excludes Beaumont, and declares for Fletcher, Massinger, and an unknown writer. Mr. Oliphant goes a step further, and, still excluding Beaumont, says the play is by Fletcher, Massinger, Field together with the remains of an earlier unknown writer! Outward agreement, again, coexists at times with startling internal discord. Mr. Fleay first saw in "The Honest Man's Fortune" the work of Fletcher, and possibly Massinger; later this became expanded into Fletcher, Massinger, Field, and Daborne, the respective shares of each being assigned. Mr. Oliphant agrees with this as to the authorship, "Bonduca." her name to the play is better known as Boadicea, just as the real hero, Caratach, is more familiar as Caractacus. He is the soul of the national struggle against Rome; truly heroic, appreciative of the valour of his foes, scorning deceit, and chivalrous in the extreme, even to feeding the enemy's spies and sending them away unhurt, or releasing Roman officers who have been basely beguiled to his camp by the wronged daughters of Bonduca. When what had seemed victory is, through the rashness of Bonduca, suddenly turned to defeat, Caratach flies to the woods with his little nephew Hengo. In Act V., Scene 5, the starving boy is gently lowered from their hiding-place by his uncle, in order that he may reach the food which loving hands, it would seem, had placed for the hard-beset fugitives. Guile then works what valour could not achieve; and the lad, pierced by a Roman shaft, is drawn up to die. Caratach bends over the little hero, shedding tears which no sufferings of his own could ever draw from him, and tenderly kisses the dying child. Nowhere else has Fletcher so touched the heart. "Thierry and Theodoret," a play which unites work almost crude enough for "The Spanish Tragedy" with portions of real power, also contains a really pathetic scene in the closing act, where the poisoned, sleepless, and dying king, Thierry, sees "Thierry and Theodoret." and declares that Mr. Fleay has been "very lucky in making such a good guess," and then proceeds to add, "for his division is almost entirely wrong"! Mr. Boyle first gave the play to Beaumont and Fletcher, together with an unknown third writer; later he solved this unknown, and extracted the root in the form of Massinger and Tourneur. Finally, Mr. Boyle, who has been one of the chief exponents of this criticism, "fancied" that "The Faithful Friends" was by the same author as "The Laws of Candy" and "The Noble Gentleman;" this author he suggests is Shirley. Mr. Oliphant, a fellow-worker of the same school, pronounces this to be “an opinion that is not worthy of consideration ". '-a remark evidently of somewhat wider application. |