THE Two Noble Kinsmen, on the authority of the title-page to the first edition, has been looked on as the production of Shakespeare and Fletcher; but not being able to find any satisfactory proof (nor indeed presumptive, except that it contains many passages not unworthy of him) that the former was joint author of it, we acknowledge we doubt the tradition of his being at all concerned in the piece. Little stress can be laid on the title-page in question (the only shadow of authority), which bears evident marks of the craft of a publisher, and was not printed till nine years after the death of Fletcher, and sixteen after Shakespeare's. Seward, however, takes it for granted to be the production of the poets to whom it has been attributed; of which he does not mention a doubt, but says,

I. It will be an entertainment to the curious, to distinguish the hand of Shakespeare 'from that of Fletcher. The only external evidence that I ever heard of, is a tradition of 'the playhouse, that the first act only was wrote by Shakespeare, and this Mr. Warburton · says in his Preface to that author. If it is true, it does great honour to Fletcher, for though there are many excellent things in that act, it is in every respect much inferior to the four others. Had it fallen within Mr. Warburton's province to have examin'd the in❝ternal evidence, I know no man so capable of striking light out of obscurity. I shall lay 'before the reader the reasons which make me doubt the authenticity of this tradition, and 'shall endeavour to prove that either Shakespeare had a very great hand in all the acts of this play, particularly in the whole charming character of the Jailor's Daughter, or else that 'Fletcher more closely imitated him in this than in any other part of his works.'

II. The prison scene between Palamon and Arcite is,' says Seward, more worthy of Shakespeare than any long one in the first act. It is in Shakespeare's SECOND-BEST manner, or in Fletcher's BEST, and these are not easily distinguishable. If the reader will con'sult the first scene of the two brothers, with their supposed father coming out of the cave, in Cymbeline, and the description of the Spartan hounds by Theseus, in Midsummer-Night's 'Dream, he will find a great similitude of sentiment, stile, and spirit: add to these, the following lines in Richard II. Mowbray being banish'd, thus complains of his want of ⚫ foreign languages:

Within my mouth you have engoal'd my tongue,

"Doubly portcullis'd with my teeth and lips,
"And dull unfeeling barren ignorance

"Must be the jailor to attend on me.'

All but the second of these are noble lines, though so great a man as Mr. Pope discarded
them from the text. The end of Arcite's former speech, (which Milton very closely fol-
lows, bewailing his blindness, in his Hymn to Light) and the lines referr'd to in the
• emendation above, have the sublimity of these lines of Mowbray, without the quaintness of
thought that disgraces one of them, notwithstanding its similitude to the ερχος οδοντων
of Homer. These reasons may induce one to place this scene to Shakespeare.' Here,
however, arise DOUBTS: On the other hand, the simile of a wild boar in chase to the-
Parthian archer (who by a bold poetic liberty is called the Parthian quiver), the bristles
and darts sticking on his back to the arrows on the archer's shoulder, and the frequent and
furious turnings of the boar to the Parthian's turning to shoot as he flies. This noble
simile is a favourite of Fletcher's, and he uses it in another play that seems to have been
wrote before this. And I believe it no where occurs in Shakespeare. As to the ana
'chronism of making Parthian archers talk'd of in Theseus's time, it is an impropriety that
both Shakespeare and Fletcher are equally guilty of.'

III. Speaking of the Jailor's Daughter, The Aurora of Guido has not more strokes of
the same hand which drew his Bacchus and Ariadne, than the sweet description of this
pretty maiden's love-distraction has to the like distraction of Ophelia in Hamlet: that of
Ophelia ending in her death, is like the Ariadne more moving, but the images here, like
those in Aurora, are more numerous, and equally exquisite in grace and beauty. May we
not then pronounce, that either this is Shakespeare's, or that Fletcher has here equall'd
him in his very BEST manner?'

IV. In p. 431, the reader will find Mr. Seward propose a mode of justification for Palamon's anger; after which he adds, This seems the whole that is wanting (which might be added in three lines) to render this play equal to Cymbeline, Measure for Measure, TwelfthNight, As You Like it, and all the plays of the SECOND-CLASS of Shakespeare; and to The Maid's Tragedy, The False One, The Bloody Brother, A King and No King, Philaster, The Double Marriage, and the rest of the FIRST-RATE plays of Beaumont and Fletcher.'

V. The description of female friendship, p. 394, & seq. he says, was probably Shake speare's, and in his SECOND, if not in his very BEST manner, which will evidently appear by its preference, which it may justly claim to the like description in Midsummer-Night's • Dream, act iii. scene 8.

VOL, III.

We, Hermia, like two artificial gods
"Created with our needles both one flower,
"Both on one sampler, sitting on one cushion;

3 K

"Both

"Both warbling of one song, both in one key;
"As if our hands, our sides, voices and minds
"Had been incorporate; so we grew together,
"Like to a double cherry, seeming parted,
"But yet an union in partition,

"Two lovely berries molded in one stem;
"Or with two seeming bodies, but one heart,.
"Two of the first, like coats in heraldry,

"Due but to one, and crowned with one crest."

VI. Relative to the madness of the Jailor's Daughter, There are, says Seward, such cha racterising strokes, and such strong features of both Ophelia and Lear in their phrensies, "that one cannot but believe that the same pencil drew them all.'

VII. We will now mention a DOUBT or two more. 'If the reader will please to consult the soliloquy of Richard II. in prison, he will find several strokes much resembling some in this scene, [the prison scene between Palamon and Arcite], and whilst he compares them, " may be apt to ascribe them both to the same hand; but the following lines out of Fletcher's Lovers' Progress, may again stagger our opinion, and make us as apt to ascribe the whole scene to Fletcher. Lidian, a young lover, in a fit of despair turns hermit, and thus describes the happiness of solitude:

These wild fields are my gardens;

"The crystal rivers they afford their waters,

"And grudge not their sweet streams to quench afflictions,

"The hollow rocks their beds, which tho' they're hard

"(The emblems of a doting lover's fortune)

"Yet they are quiet, and the weary slumbers

"The eyes catch there, softer than beds of down;
"The birds my bell to call me to devotions;
"My book the story of my wand'ring life,

"In which I find more hours due to repentance
"Than time hath told me yet.'

See the whole dialogue, act iv. scene 3.'

VIII. Again, What was said of the difficulty of judging whether Shakespeare or Fletcher had the greatest hand in the scene of the Two Kinsmen in prison, is applicable to this, [the temple scene] and indeed to all the scenes in which they appear. Fletcher frequently writes as well, and Shakespeare perhaps alone of all our dramatick poets can be said ever

to have wrote better.'

6

IX. Again, This Schoolmaster and his fellow-comedians seem very like the farcical clowns in Midsummer-Night's Dream, and other plays of Shakespeare; yet it seems probable that Fletcher had the greatest share of this, as the quotation from Tully's Oration against Catiline, and all the Latinisms of the Schoolmaster seem wrote by one who was more ready in Latin quotations than Shakespeare; who, notwithstanding all the pains which fearned men have taken to prove the contrary, seems to have had no more Latin than falls to the share of a very young school-boy, the Grammar and a little of Ovid. At the same time, I allow him an excellent scholar in English, French, and Italian, which comprehend a vast extent of literature.'

X. Shakespeare's supposed want of erudition, Mr. Seward considers as an argument for some other particular parts being attributed to Fletcher: thus, after observing that the method of concealing combats was an art well known to the Greek tragedians, he says, I don't • remember either in Shakespeare or Fletcher, any instance of this kind before this combat. As Fletcher was a scholar, and Shakespeare not one in Greek, the former was probably the author here.'

XI. Again, speaking of Theseus's address to the First Queen, wherein he mentions Juno's mantle, Seward says, ' As there is more display of learning in this speech than is usually seen in Shakespeare's, may we not probably suppose this scene to have been Fletcher's, contrary to the receiv'd opinion?'

XII. The modesty of the expression, Weak as we are,' in the prologue, makes Seward think it probable, that the play was acted before the death of Shakespeare, and that it was wrote in conjunction as much as those which Beaumont joined in.' And the modesty of promising, in the epilogue, many a better play,' says he, strengthens the probability of the two great authors having nearly an equal share of the play. Had Fletcher finished a "work of Shakespeare's, he would probably have spoke in a different stile.'

manner:

6

6

I. Seward is rather unfortunate in his beginning; for Warburton does not even mention The Two Noble Kinsmen in the Preface.-Pope speaks of it in his Preface, in the following if that play be his, as there goes a tradition it was, (and indeed it has little resemblance of Fletcher, and more of our author than some of those which have been ' received as genuine):' An assertion which that great man would not have made, had he ever read

read Fletcher with attention. Mr. Steevens ranks this play in the same list with Locrine, London Prodigal, Sir John Oldcastle, and the other plays ascribed to Shakespeare by catalogues and editions, whose authority has not been sufficient to gain the several pieces there mentioned a place among the dramas at present received as Shakespeare's; and except the posthumous title-page of 1634, there is indeed no kind of authority.

II. III. IV. Seward is very fond of the idea of Fletcher's BEST manner resembling Shakespeare's SECOND-BEST; but we cannot help thinking it childish to account the poetry of those scenes which he cites, Shakespeare's SECOND-BEST. Whether they were his work or Fletcher's, they are most excellent; and might have been produced by either, or by Beaumont. That Shakespeare is, taken altogether, superior to our authors, is certain; but there often occur passages in their plays far beyond the promise of the subject, and equal to the pen of any writer ancient or modern; as may be evinced by numberless passages in Philaster, the Maid's Tragedy, King and no King, Bonduca, Wife for a Month, Cupid's Revenge, &c. &c. &c. notwithstanding what is above quoted from the Preface of that great man, Mr. Pope.

V. In our opinion, there is more ease, spirit, and nature, in the description in the Midsummer-Night's Dream, than in that of the Two Noble Kinsmen. However, if it be otherwise, Fletcher has confessedly so much poetical merit, that to attribute bis most exquisite beauties to Shakespeare, is doing him an injury. And in this injury we are sorry to find Dr. Farmer has taken part, who, speaking of Emilia's fine comparison of a maid to a rose, which he highly praises, says, I have no doubt those lines were written by Shakespeare.' And because the speech of Theseus, p. 396, is particularly beautiful, Seward thinks that it looks 'extremely like the hand of Shakespeare.'

Like

VI. Though there is much poetical fancy in the phrensy of the Jailor's Daughter, we cannot with Mr. Seward think it equal to the natural madness painted by Shakespeare. the assumed distraction of Hamlet and Edgar,

'Tho' this be madness, yet there's method in't;'

more apparent method than in the drawing of Ophelia and Lear.

VII. VIII. IX. Nothing need be said of the DOUBTS.

X. XI. What is here said, tending to invalidate Shakespeare's claim, is apart from the argument; but we may, however, just remark, that there are inany speeches in Shakespeare, as much abounding with learned allusions as any part of Theseus's address.

XII. That the play was wrote in conjunction,' we will readily suppose; but no kind of information can be derived from either prologue or epilogue, who the associate was.

We have now gone through all that Mr. Seward had said on this subject; wherein we cannot find one plausible argument for ascribing to Shakespeare any part of the Two Noble Kinsmen; which certainly abounds with the peculiar beauties and defects that distinguish the rest of this collection, and should, in our opinion, (if a joint work) be attributed to the same authors. There are too, many particular passages and expressions in this play, which bear a striking similarity to others wrote between them: of this sort are TRACE, and turn boys! p. 410 on the same mob-occasion, the same expression occurs in Philaster. In that play too, the Prince talks of discoursing from a pyramid, to all the under-world: So here, p. 419, Emilia says, in one of the most beautiful passages of the play,

Fame and Honour,

'Methinks, from hence, as from a promontory

Pointed in Heav'n, should clap their wings, and sing

To all the under-world

And various others might be quoted. Writers often unknowingly copy themselves, as well as other authors; and tho' it might here be answer'd, that Fletcher is allowed to have wrote in both, and the similar passages may be his; yet Beaumont (who had a great share in Philaster) is as likely to have produced them in both as his associate. And (what is rather remarkable) it will appear to my attentive reader, that the chief similarities are to pieces in which Beaumont is universally allowed to have been connected, not where his assistance is doubted.—Had Shakespeare been considered as one of the joint authors, is it not natural to suppose, that a play of so much excellence would have found a place in the collection of his Dramas published by Hemings and Condell? But they have neither admitted the piece, nor taken the least notice of Shakespeare's being at all concerned in it. We must not, indeed, rest too much upon this, as it is certain they omitted Troilus and Cressida, a play, however, of much less eminence: on the whole, we think that there ought to be more authority than an uncertain tradition, to take the credit of this play from Beaumont and Fletcher, the joint authors of so many other excellent dramas, written very much in the stile and spirit of the play before us. Place Shakespeare's name before several other of these dramas, how many criticks, like Seward, would labour to ascertain the particular passages that came from lus hand!

THE

TRAGEDY

OF

THIERRY AND THEODORET.

The first edition of this Play was printed in quarto, 1621, without the name of either Author. The edition of 1648, ascribes it to Fletcher; and that of 1649, to both writers. Dr. Hyde, in the Bodleian Catalogue, assigns it to Ben Jonson, without any authority whatever. It was formerly performed frequently, but of late years has been entirely laid aside.

The oldest quarto

• Tax me with these hot tainters?] Theobald would read, hot TAINTS. exhibits tainturs; we therefore prefer taintures; and though we do not remember meeting with the word, it is more expressive of the sense of taints (here required) than tainters.

Dare