FOOTNOTES:

Oh I could curseAnd crucify myself for childish dotingUpon a face that feeds not with fresh figuresEvery fresh hour;

and with triplets:

What new bodyAnd new face must I make me, with new manners;

and with the resonant "all":

Make her all thy heaven,And all thy joy, for she is all thy happiness;

and with Fletcher's favourite words and his nouns in apposition, rhetorical questions, afterthoughts, verbal enumerations, and turgid exposition. The same may be said ofThe Triumph of Time. As there is lessof the redundant epithet than inThe Faithfull Shepheardesse(1609), but more than inPhilaster(before July 12, 1610), I am of the opinion that Fletcher's contribution to theTriumphsfalls chronologically between those plays. As Fletcher matures he prunes his adjectives.

The rest of theseMorall Representationsdisplay neither the verse nor the rhetoric of Fletcher. On the basis of verse-tests Boyle assigns them to Beaumont. Macaulay says, "probably,"—and adds theInduction. But Oliphant, taking into consideration also the rhetorical and dramatic qualities, gives theInductionandThe Triumph of Honourto a third author, Nathaniel Field, and onlyThe Triumph of Loveto Beaumont. As to theInductionandThe Triumph of HonourI agree with Oliphant. They are full of polysyllabic Latinisms such as Field uses in hisWoman is a Weather-cocke(entered for publication November 23, 1611) and Beaumont never uses: 'to participate affairs,' 'torturous engine,' etc.; and they are marked by simpler Fieldian expressions 'wale,' 'gyv'd,' 'blown man,' 'miskill,' 'vane,' 'lubbers,' 'urned,' and a score of others not found anywhere in Beaumont's undoubted writings. A few words, like 'basilisk' and 'loathed' suggest Beaumont, as does the verse; but this may be explained by vogue or imitation. Field was two or three years younger than Beaumont, and had played as a boy actor in one or more of the early Beaumont and Fletcher productions. HisWoman is a Weather-cockeand hisAmends for Ladiesindicate the influence of Beaumont in matters of comic invention,poetic hyperbole, burlesque and pathos, as well as in metrical style. TheHonouris a somewhat bombastic, puerile, magic-show written in manifest imitation of Beaumont's verse and rhetoric.

As toThe Triumph of Love, I go further than Oliphant. I assign at least half of it, viz., scenes 1, 2, and 6, on the basis of diction, to Field. In scenes 3, 4, and 5, I find some trace of Beaumont's favourite expressions, of his thoughts of destiny and death and woman's tenderness, his poetic spontaneity, his sensational dramatic surprises; but I think these are an echo. The rural scene lacks his exquisite simplicity; and some of the words are not of his vocabulary. One is sorry to strike from the list of Beaumont's creations the pathetic and almost impressive figure of Violante. If it was originally Beaumont's, it is of his earlier work revamped by Field; if it is Field's, it is an echo simulating the voice, but missing the reality, of Beaumont's Aspatia, Bellario, Urania. This criticism holds true of both the Triumphs,LoveandHonour.

The commonly accepted date, 1608, for the composition of theFoure Playes in Oneis derived from Fleay, who mistakenly quotes a reference in the 1619 quarto ofThe Yorkshire Tragedyto theFoure Playesas if it were of the 1608 quarto where the reference does not appear.[181]While Fletcher may have written the first draft of his contribution before the middle of 1610, it is evident from Field's AddressTo the Readerin the first quarto of theWoman is a Weather-cocke(entered S. R., November 23, 1611), that Field's contribution was made after November 23, 1611. In that Address he makes it plain that this is his first dramatic effort: "I have been vexed with vile plays myself a great while, hearing many; now I thought to be even with some, and they should hear mine too." We have already noticed[182]that Field had not written even hisWeather-cocke, still less anything in collaboration with Fletcher, at the time of the publication ofThe Faithfull Shepheardesse(between January and July, 1609); for in his complimentary poem for the quarto of that "Pastorall," Field acknowledges his unknown name and his Muse in swaddling clouts, and timidly confesses his ambition to write something likeThe Shepheardesse, "including a Morallitie, Sweete and profitable." That Field's contribution to theFoure Playeswas not made before the date of the first performance ofThe Weather-cockeby the Revels' Children at Whitefriars,i. e., January 4, 1610 to Christmas 1610-11 (when its presentation before the King at Whitehall probably took place), further appears from his dedicationTo Any Woman that hath been no Weather-cocke(quarto, 1611) in which he alludes not toThe Triumph of Honour, or ofLove, but toAmends for Ladies, as his "next play," then on the stocks, and, he thought, soon to be printed.[183]The evidence, external and internal, amply presented by Oliphant, Thorndike, and others, but with a view to conclusions different from mine as to date and authorship, confirms me in the belief that Fletcher'sTimeandDeath, though written at least two years earlier, were not gathered up with Field'sInduction,Honour, andLove, into theFoure Playes in Oneuntil about 1612; and that the series was performed at Whitefriars by Field's company of the Queen's Revels' Children, shortly after they had first actedCupid's Revengeat the same theatre.

2.—Of the remaining ten plays in which, according to the historical evidence adduced by various critics, Beaumont could have collaborated, at least two furnish no material that can be of service for the estimation of his qualities. IfLove's Curewas written as early as the date of certain references in the story, viz., 1605-1609, it is so overlaid by later alteration that whether, as the textual experts guess, it be Beaumont's revised by Massinger, or Fletcher's revised by Massinger and others, or Massinger and Middleton's, or Beaumont's with the assistance of Fletcher and revised by Massinger, Beaumont for us is indeterminate. Fleay, Oliphant, and others trace him in a few prose scenes, and in two or three of verse.[184]But where the rhetorical and dramatic manner occasionally suggest him, or the metre has somewhat of his stamp, words abound that I find in no work of his undisputed composition. The servant, Lazarillo, like him of Beaumont'sWoman-Hater, is a glutton, but he does not speak Beaumont's language. The scenes ascribed to Beaumont reek with an excremental and sexual vulgarity to which Beaumont never condescended, unless for brief space, and when absolutely necessary for characterization.And there is little, indeed, that bespeaks Fletcher.Love's Curewas first attributed to Beaumont and Fletcher at a "reviving of the play" after they were both dead; and it was not printed till 1647. It is not unlikely, as G. C. Macaulay holds, that the play was written by Massinger, in or after 1622.

3.—As to that comedy of prostitution, with occasional essays on the special charms of cuckoldry,The Captaine(acted in 1613, maybe as early as 1611, and by the King's Company) there is no convincing external proof of Beaumont's authorship. It is, on the contrary, assigned to Fletcher by one of his younger contemporaries, Hills, whose attributions of such authorship are frequently correct; and its accent throughout is more clearly that of Fletcher than of any other dramatist. The critics are agreed that it is not wholly his, however; and G. C. Macaulay in especial conjectures the presence of Massinger. The verse and prose of a few scenes[185]do not preclude the possibility of Beaumont's coöperation; but I find in them no vestige of his faith in sweet innocence; and in only one,—the awful episode (IV, 5), in which the Father seeks his wanton daughter in a house of shame and would kill her,—his imaginative elevation or his dramatic creativity.

FOOTNOTES:[180]To employ in this process of separation the characteristics of Fletcher's later dramatic technique as a criterion does not appear to me permissible. For these, however, the reader may consult Miss Hatcher'sJohn Fletcher, A Study on Dramatic Method, and sections 15 and 16 of my essay onThe Fellows and Followers of Shakespeare, Part Two,Rep. Eng. Com., Vol. III, now in press. The technique is more likely to change than the versification, the style, the mental habit. Its later characteristics may, some of them, have been derived from the association with Beaumont; or they may be of Fletcher's maturer development under different influences and conditions. It is fair to cite them as corroborative evidence in the process of separation, only when they are in continuance of Fletcher's earlier idiosyncrasy. I have, also, refrained from complicating the present discussion by analysis of the style of Massinger, for which see Fleay,N. S. S. Trans., 1874,Shakesp. Manual, 1876,Engl. Studien, 1885-1886, andChron. Eng. Dram., 1891; Boyle,Engl. Studien, 1881-1887, andN. S. S. Trans., 1886; Macaulay,Francis Beaumont, 1883; Oliphant,Engl. Studien, 1890-1892; Thorndike,Infl. of B. and F., 1901; and section 16 of my essay mentioned above. There is no proof of Massinger's dramatic activity before July 1613, nor of his coöperation with Fletcher until after that date,i. e., after Beaumont's virtual cessation. He may have revised some of Beaumont's lines and scenes; but Beaumont's style is too well defined to be confused with that of Massinger or of any other reviser; or of an imitator, such as Field.[181]See Thorndike,Infl. of B. and F., p. 85, for discussion and authorities.[182]Chapter VI.[183]It was not printed till 1618; but had been acted long before.[184]II, 1, 2; III, 1, 3, 5; V, 3.[185]IV, 5; V, 2, 4, 5.

[180]To employ in this process of separation the characteristics of Fletcher's later dramatic technique as a criterion does not appear to me permissible. For these, however, the reader may consult Miss Hatcher'sJohn Fletcher, A Study on Dramatic Method, and sections 15 and 16 of my essay onThe Fellows and Followers of Shakespeare, Part Two,Rep. Eng. Com., Vol. III, now in press. The technique is more likely to change than the versification, the style, the mental habit. Its later characteristics may, some of them, have been derived from the association with Beaumont; or they may be of Fletcher's maturer development under different influences and conditions. It is fair to cite them as corroborative evidence in the process of separation, only when they are in continuance of Fletcher's earlier idiosyncrasy. I have, also, refrained from complicating the present discussion by analysis of the style of Massinger, for which see Fleay,N. S. S. Trans., 1874,Shakesp. Manual, 1876,Engl. Studien, 1885-1886, andChron. Eng. Dram., 1891; Boyle,Engl. Studien, 1881-1887, andN. S. S. Trans., 1886; Macaulay,Francis Beaumont, 1883; Oliphant,Engl. Studien, 1890-1892; Thorndike,Infl. of B. and F., 1901; and section 16 of my essay mentioned above. There is no proof of Massinger's dramatic activity before July 1613, nor of his coöperation with Fletcher until after that date,i. e., after Beaumont's virtual cessation. He may have revised some of Beaumont's lines and scenes; but Beaumont's style is too well defined to be confused with that of Massinger or of any other reviser; or of an imitator, such as Field.

[181]See Thorndike,Infl. of B. and F., p. 85, for discussion and authorities.

[182]Chapter VI.

[183]It was not printed till 1618; but had been acted long before.

[184]II, 1, 2; III, 1, 3, 5; V, 3.

[185]IV, 5; V, 2, 4, 5.

"THE WOMAN-HATER," AND "THE KNIGHT"

Four.—The Woman-Haterwas entered in the Stationers' Registers, May 20, 1607, and published in quarto (twice, with but slight variation) the same year "as lately acted by the Children of Paules." Of the date of composition, probably the spring of 1607, I have written in Chapter VI, above. There is no indication of authorship in either quarto; but the Prologue assigns it to a single author—"he that made this play." The quarto of 1648 prints it as "by J. Fletcher Gent."; that of 1649, as by Beaumont and Fletcher. The Prologue of 1649, however, written by D'Avenant for an undated revival of the play and addressed to the Ladies, definitely ascribes the authorship to one "poet," who "to the stars your sex did raise; for which, full twenty years he wore the bays." The "twenty years" can apply only to Fletcher.

In the lines which follow, D'Avenant has been supposed to credit the same author with the whole ofThe Maides Tragedy,Philaster, andA King and No Kingas well:

'T was he reduc'd Evadne from her scorn,And taught the sad Aspatia how to mourn;Gave Arethusa's love a glad relief;And made Panthea elegant in grief.

We now know, from the application of metrical and rhetorical tests, that but a small part of each of the plays here alluded to was written by Fletcher. If D'Avenant has attributed to Fletcher in these cases plays of which the larger part was written by Beaumont, he was but consistent in error when he ascribed to FletcherThe Woman-Hater, in which there is very little that betrays resemblance to Fletcher's style. If, on the other hand, D'Avenant in the verses quoted above intended to attribute to Fletcher merely individual scenes ofThe Maides Tragedy, etc., he must have had a knowledge of the respective authorship of the dramatists hardly to be reconciled with the palpable mistake of assigningThe Woman-Haterto Fletcher. For, by an odd coincidence, he has indicated in the first and second verses two[186]of the five scenes ofThe Maides Tragedy, and in the third, two[187]of the five scenes ofPhilasterwhich our modern criticism has proved to be Fletcher's. The reference in the fourth line is more vague; but it has the merit of indicating the only scene ofA King and No King[188]in which, according to our critical tests, Fletcher has contributed to the characterization of Panthea. With regard toThe Woman-Hater, it would appear that D'Avenant was carelessly following the mistaken ascription of authorship on the title-page of the quarto of 1648.

Fleay, Boyle, Macaulay, and Ward, with but slight hesitation, pronounceThe Woman-Haterto be an independent production of Beaumont, written while he was under the influence of Ben Jonson; but as I shallpresently show, Fletcher has revised a few scenes. Oliphant feels inclined to join the critics mentioned above, but cannot blind himself "to the presence of Fletcher in a couple of scenes." One of these is III, 1.[189]In the quartos this scene is divided into two. By theyetest the first half-scene, running toEnter Duke, Etc., in which Oriana tempts Gondarino, would be Fletcher's (15ye'sto 9you's); but the percentage of double endings is too low, and that of run-on lines too high for him. I think that he is revising Beaumont's original sketch. The second half-scene and the rest of the act are, by theyetest and all other criteria, Beaumont's. The metrical style of the act as a whole is Beaumont's; so also the enclitic 'do's' and 'did's,' the Beaumontesque 'basilisk,' 'dissemble,' the mock-heroic prayers, and mock-legal nicety of enumeration, the racy ironic prose, and the burlesque Shakespearian echoes—"That pleasing piece of frailty that we call woman," etc. The other passage doubtfully assigned to Fletcher, by Oliphant—forty lines followingEnter Ladiesin V, 5 (Dyce)—more closely resembles his manner of verse, but is not markedly of his rhetorical stamp. But by theyetest (24ye'sto 39you's) the whole of that scene, openingEnter Arigo and Orianais Fletcher's, or Fletcher's revision of Beaumont. So, also, by theyetest is another scene not before ascribed to Fletcher, IV, 2 (27ye'sto 25you's), as far asEnter Oriana and her Waiting-woman. In this and the otheryescenes, theyefrequently occurs in the objective,—which is absoluteFletcher. The rest of this scene, constituting two in the quartos, is pure Beaumont.—The play is, so far as we can determine, Beaumont's earliest attempt at dramatic production. Fletcher touched it up, and his revision shows in the scenes mentioned above; that is to say, in about sixteen out of the seventy pages as printed in theCambridge English Classics.

The manifestly exaggerated torments of Gondarino "who will be a scourge to all females in his life," the amorous affectation of Oriana, the "stratagems and ambuscadoes" of the hungry courtier in his pursuit of "the chaste virgin-head" of a fish, the zealous stupidity of the intelligencers are, as we have already noted, of the humours school; and the work is that of a beginner. But the "humours" are flavoured with Beaumont's humanity; the mirth is his, genuine and rollicking. The satire is concrete; and the play as a whole, a promising precursor of the purple-flowered prickly pear, next to be considered,—also undoubtedly Beaumont's.

5.—Evidence, both external and internal, points to the production ofThe Knight of the Burning Pestlebetween July 10, 1607 and some time in March 1608. Since the first quarto (1613) is anonymous, our earliest indication of authorship is that of the title-pages of the second and third (1635), which ascribe the play to Beaumont and Fletcher; and our next, the Cockpit list of 1639 where it is included in a sequence of five plays in which one or both had a hand.

The dedication of the first quarto speaks in one place of the "parents" of the play, and in othersof its "father"; and the address prefixed to the second quarto speaks of the "author." Critics when relying upon verse-tests think that they trace the hand of Fletcher in several scenes.[190]But in those scenes, even when the double-endings might indicate Fletcher, the frequency of rhymes, masculine and feminine, is altogether above his usage; the number of end-stopped lines is ordinarily below it; and the diction, save in one or two brief passages,[191]is his neither in vocabulary nor rhetorical device. The verse is singularly free from alliteration; and the prose, in which over a third of the play is written, displays that characteristic of Fletcher in only one speech,[192]and, there, with ludicrous intent. Though, on the other hand, the verse is in many respects different from that which Beaumont employed in his more stereotyped drama, it displays in several passages his acknowledged peculiarity in conjunction with a diction and manner of thought undoubtedly his. The prose is generally of a piece with that of his other comic writing, as inThe Woman-Hatermore especially; and the scenes of low life and the conversation are coloured by his rhetoric as we know them inPhilaster,A King and No King, andThe Coxcombe. Of the portrayal of humours, mock-heroic and burlesque, the same statements hold true. The verse of Jasper's soliloquy:[193]

Now, Fortune, if thou beest not onely ill,Shew me thy better face, and bring aboutMy desperate wheele, that I may clime at lengthAnd stand,—

is in the usual manner of Beaumont. Luce's lament, beginning:[194]

Thou that artThe end of all, and the sweete rest of allCome, come, ô, Death! bring me to thy peace,And blot out all the memory I nourishBoth of my father and my cruell friend,—

and ending:

How happy had I bene, if, being borne,My grave had bene my cradle!

has both the diction and the point of view of Beaumont; and its verse has not more of the double-endings than he sometimes uses. The subject and the mock-heroic purpose do not call for his usual dramatic vocabulary: but we recognize his 'dissemble,' his 'carduus' and 'phlebotomy' (comparePhilaster), his 'eyes shoot me through,' his 'do's.' We recognize him in the frequent appeals to Chance and Fortune, in the sensational determination of Jasper to test Luce's devotion at the point of the sword, and in the series of sensational complications and dénouements which conclude the romantic plot. In short, I agree with the critics[195]who attribute the play, wholly or chiefly, to Beaumont. Fletcher may have inserted a few verses here and there; but there is nothing in sentiment, phrase, or artifice, to prove that he did.

The diversity of metrical forms is but an evidence of the ingenuity of Beaumont. He has used blank verse with frequent double-endings to distinguish the romantic characters and plot: as in the scenes between Venturewell and Jasper, Jasper and Luce. He has used the heroic couplet with rhymes, single and double, to distinguish the mock-romantic of Venturewell and Humphrey, Humphrey and Luce. For the mock-heroic of Ralph he has used the swelling ten-syllabled blank verse of Marlowe and Kyd, or the prose ofAmadisandPalmerin; for his burlesque of the Maylord he has used the senarii of the antiquated interlude. For the conversation of the Merrythoughts and of the citizen-critics he has used plain prose; and for the tuneful ecstasies of Merrythought senior, a sheaf of ballads. This consideration alone,—that the metrical and prose forms are chosen with a view to the various purposes of the play,—should convince the reader of the vanity of assigning to Fletcher verse which evidently had its origin not in any of his proclivities, but in the temper of Beaumont's Venturewell, Jasper, and Luce.

The Knight of the Burning Pestlewas written and first acted between June 29, 1607 and April 1, 1608. The upper limit is fixed, as Boyle has indicated,[196]by the mention, in Act IV, 1, 46, of an incident inThe Travails of Three English Brothers, "let the Sophy of Persia come and christen him a childe," concerning which the 'Boy' remarks, I, 48-50, "that will not do so well; 'tis stale; it has been had before at the Red Bull." The Red Bull, Clerkenwell, had beenoccupied by Queen Anne's Men (whose plays Beaumont is especially ridiculing), since 1604.[197]The Travailswas written hurriedly by Day, Rowley, and Wilkins after the appearance, June 8, 1607, of a tract by Nixon, on the adventures of the three Shirleys, and was performed June 29, by the Queen's Men.[198]The Travailsdealt with a matter of ephemeral interest, and would not long have held the public. It is, therefore, likely that the allusion to it inThe Knight of the Burning Pestlewas written shortly after June 29. Since the play, according to its first publisher, took eight days to write, we cannot assign any date earlier than, say, July 10, 1607, for its first performance. The lower limit is determined by the certainty thatThe Knightwas played by the Queen's Revels' Children at Blackfriars; and that they ceased to act there as an independent company some time in March 1608. The play belonged in 1639 to Beeston's Boys, who had it with four others of Beaumont and Fletcher from Queen Henrietta's Men. None of these five plays had ever been played by the King's Company; it is likely that they had come to the Queen Henrietta's from the Lady Elizabeth's Men with whom the Queen's Revels' Children had been amalgamated in 1613.[199]One of these plays,Cupid's Revenge, had certainly come down from the Queen's Revels' Boys in that way.

That the original performance was by a company of children appears from numerous passages in thetext; and the only other children's company available for consideration between 1603 and 1611, when the manuscript fell into the publisher's hands, is that of the Paul's Boys. That the Paul's Boys were not the company performing is shown, however, by a passage in theInduction, where the citizen-critic, interrupting the Prologue of the "good-man boy," says: "This seven yeares [that] there hath beene playes at this house, I have observed it, you have still girds at citizens." Now, at no date between the summer of 1608 and 1611 could it have been said of the Children of Paul's that they had been acting seven years continuously at any one "house." The career of the Paul's Boys as actors at their cathedral school had ended in the summer of 1608, when Robert Keysar, Rossiter, and others interested in the rival company of the Queen's Revels' Children had subsidized Edward Pierce, the manager of the Paul's Boys, to cease plays at St. Paul's.[200]If between that date and 1611 they acted, it was elsewhere, at Whitefriars perhaps, and temporarily (not after 1609), and as the I King's Revels' Children.[201]The citizen-critic, therefore, if speaking after the summer of 1608, could not have referred to Paul's Boys. If speaking of Paul's Boys between 1603 and 1608, the only "house" that he can have had in mind would be their school of St. Paul's Cathedral; and to say that there had been plays there forsevenyears would have been utterly pointless,for the Paul's Boys had been acting in their school, or in its courtyard, for twenty, one might say fifty years, more or less continuously. Fleay conjectures wildly that they had occupied Whitefriars between 1604 and 1607, but that does not explain the "seven yeares at this house"; to say nothing of the fact that such occupancy is unproved. An old Whitefriars inn-yard playhouse had been "pulled down" in 1582-3. No other Whitefriars Theatre existed till 1607, when a new Whitefriars "was occupied by six equal sharers with original title from Lord Buckhurst."[202]

The company was not that of St. Paul's; and the "house" was not a school-house, but a regularly constituted theatre. Now, the only theatre, public or private, that, at any rate between 1603 and 1611, had been occupied by a boys' company for "this seven yeares" was Blackfriars; and of Blackfriars the statement could be made only at a date preceding January 4, 1610, and with reference to the Queen's Revels' Children. On that date, as reorganized under Rossiter, Keysar, and others, they received a Patent authorizing them to open at Whitefriars, "or in any other convenient place." For about a month before, they had filled an engagement at Blackfriars, the lease of which had reverted on August 9, 1608 to Burbadge and Shakespeare's company of the King's Players. They had ceased playing at Blackfriars as an independent company in March 1608; the theatre had beentenantless after that for six months and then had been closed until December 7, 1609, because of the prevalence of the plague. The Citizen's complaint that the boys have been girding at citizens "this seven yeares there hath been playes at this house" would lose all cogency if spoken of the Queen's Revels' Children when they were acting during the month following December 7, 1609, both because plays had been then intermitted for the twenty months preceding, and because in 1609 it was not seven but twelve years since the boys had begun their occupancy of "this house." It could not apply to the seven years between 1597, when they first occupied Blackfriars, and 1604, becauseThe Knight of the Burning Pestlewas not written till after theTravails of Three English Brothersappeared, June 29, 1607. But it does apply, with all requisite dramatic and chronological accuracy, to the seven years preceding the last date,—or the date in March 1608, when, because of their scandalous representation of the King of France and his mistress in Chapman'sTragedie of Charles, Duke of Byron, and because of plays caricaturing and vilifying King James, the Queen's Revels' Children were prohibited from playing, their principal actors thrown into prison, and Blackfriars suppressed. On September 29, 1600, Richard Burbadge had let Blackfriars on a twenty-one-year lease to Henry Evans, the manager of the Queen's Revels' Children, and under the organization of that date they had by 1607-1608 been giving plays exactly "this seven yeares at this house." We are, as I have said, informed by the publisher ofThe Knightthat the play was written in eight days. Itmight have been staged in two or three. If the plague regulations were enforced during 1607-8, as I have no doubt they were,The Knightwas acted between July 10 and 23, 1607, or between December 26, 1607 and the Biron day in March 1608.

The internal evidence is all confirmatory of this period of composition. The Queen Anne's Men of the "Red Bull" mentioned in the play obtained their title to the Red Bull from Aaron Holland about 1604. The songs in the play were common property between 1604 and 1607; none of the romances ridiculed is of a later date than 1607; and of the eight plays mentioned or alluded to, all had been acted before June 1607 butThe Travails; and that was played for the first time June 29 of that year. The allusions to external history such as that in Act IV, ii, 4, to the Prince of Moldavia—who left London in November 1607—and the humorous jibe at the pretty Paul's Boys of Mr. Mulcaster, who ceased teaching them in 1608, are all for 1607-8.[203]Fleay marshals an applausive gallery of conjectures for his conjecture of 1610, but none of them appears to me to have any substance; and in view of what has been said, and of what will follow, I may dispense with their consideration.

The history of the manuscript is, as has not been noted before, also confirmatory of the 1607-8 date. The Robert Keysar who rescued the play from "perpetuall oblivion" after its failure upon the stage (asBurre says in the dedication of the first quarto) and who "afterwards" (in 1610-11) turned it over, "yet an infant" (i. e.unpublished) and "somewhat ragged," to Burre for publication, is the same "Mr. Keysar" who in February 1606, with "Mr. Kendall," also of the Blackfriars' management, had been paid for "Apparrell" furnished for a performance given by the Children of Westminster School.[204]He at no period had any connection with the Paul's Boys. He was, as Professor Wallace informs us, a London goldsmith who "about this time (1606-7) acquired an interest in the shifting fortunes of Blackfriars, and became the financial backer of the Queen's Revels' Children. He had cause to dislike King James for oppression in wresting money from the goldsmiths."[205]Hence probably the attacks of the Queen's Revels' Children upon the King, which helped to bring about their suppression at Blackfriars in 1608. Keysar would inevitably know all about the plays performed by his Children,The Knight of the Burning Pestleamong the rest, during the last year of their occupancy of Blackfriars. And since, according to Burre, he appreciated the merits ofThe Knightit was but natural that he, and not some person unconnected with the company, should have preserved the manuscript,—perhaps with a view to having the Children try the play again after they should re-open at Whitefriars. With Rossiter, soon after March 1608, he was making preparations for such a reorganization.When finally they did re-open at their new theatre, in January 1610, they evidently did not take up the play. Somewhat later, say 1611, Keysar sent the manuscript to Burre for publication. Burre "fostred it privately in his bosome these two yeares" and brought it out in 1613.

The conclusion of Burre's dedicatory address to Keysar in the first quarto, of 1613, has unnecessarily complicated both the question of the date of composition and that of the source ofThe Knight of the Burning Pestle. "Perhaps," says he, "it [The Knight] will be thought to bee of the race of Don Quixote: we both may confidently sweare, it is his elder above a yeare; and therefore may (by vertue of his birth-right) challenge the wall of him. I doubt not but they will meet in their adventures, and I hope the breaking of one staffe will make them friends; and perhaps they will combine themselves, and travell through the world to seeke their adventures." This denial of indebtedness to Cervantes has been generally taken to refer to Shelton's English translation of Don Quixote, entered S. R. January 19, 1611-12, and printed 1612; and it has, therefore, been supposed by many thatThe Knightwas written and first acted in 1610 or 1611. But if Burre was datingThe Knightas of 1610 or 1611, he was ignorant of the fact, as established above, that the play was the elder of Shelton's printedDon Quixote, not merely "above a yeare," but above four years. There are only two other constructions to be placed upon Burre's statement: either that the play was the elder above a year of the first part ofDon Quixote, issued in the Spanishby Cervantes in 1605,[206]or that it was the elder above a year of Shelton's translation as circulated among his friends in manuscript, at any rate as early as 1609. If Burre was dating the play, according to the former interpretation, as of 1604, he was ignorant of the fact that it could not have been written till after the appearance ofThe Travails of Three English Brothers, June 29, 1607. The latter interpretation would, if we could adopt it as his understanding of the matter, not only comport with the date of the production ofThe Knightin 1607-8, but also, somewhat roughly, with his own statement that he had had the manuscript already in a battered condition in his "bosome" since 1610 or 1611.

If Burre, who was not a litterateur, did not know that Shelton's translation ofDon Quixotehad been going the rounds for years before it was printed in 1612, everybody else did. Shelton had announced as much in hisEpistle Dedicatorieto Theophilus, Lord Howard of Walden, prefixed to the first quarto of 1612. He translated the book, as he says, "some five or six yeares agoe"—that would be in 1607, for he used the Brussels Reprint of that year as his text,—"out of the Spanish Tongue into the English in the space of forty daies: being thereunto more than half enforced through the importunitie of a very deere friende, that was desirous to understand the subject. After I had given him once a view thereof, I cast it aside, where it lay long time neglected in a corner, and so little regarded by me as I never once set hand to review or correct the same. Since when, at theentreatie of others my friends, I was content to let it come to light, conditionally that some one or other would peruse and amend the errours escaped"—because he had not time to revise it himself. In other words, Shelton had shown the manuscript translation ofDon Quixoteto but one friend in 1607; and it was not till "long time" had elapsed that he began to circulate it among his other friends on condition that they should correct its errors. The date of circulation was, probably, about 1609, for in that year we have our earliest mention of the reading ofDon Quixoteby an Englishman,—by a dramatic character, to be sure, but a character created by Ben Jonson. In hisEpicoene, acted in 1610, and written the year preceding, that dramatist makes Truewit advise the young Sir Dauphine to cease living in his chamber "a month together uponAmadis de Gaule, orDon Quixote, as you are wont." There is no ascription of Spanish to Dauphine, who is a typical London gallant. He would readAmadisin the French, or the English translation; and the only translation ofDon Quixoteaccessible to him in 1609 would be Shelton's manuscript of Part One.[207]Jonson may himself have been one of the friends to whom Shelton submitted the translation. There is no reason to believe that Jonson had read Cervantes in the original; for, as Professor Rudolph Schevill has conclusively demonstrated,[208]his knowledge of Spanish was extremely limited. "The Spanish phrases pronouncedby the improvised 'hidalgo' in theAlchemist(of 1610) prove nothing." They were caught, as Professor Schevill says, from the London vogue or may have been supplied by some Spanish acquaintance. Indeed, one may even doubt whether if he read Shelton's manuscript Jonson did so with any care, for not only inThe Alchemistbut elsewhere he uniformly couples Don Quixote as if a character of chivalric romance with Amadis, of whom and his congeners Don Quixote is a burlesque.

As to Burre, however, I do not think that he had been informed by Keysar of the exact provenience of the manuscript ofThe Knight, or of the date of first acting. I incline to believe that he had theEpistle Dedicatorieof the newly printed Shelton before him when, in 1613, he wrote his dedication ofThe Knightto Robert Keysar; for he runs the figure of the book as a "child" and of its "father" and "step-father" through his screed as Shelton had run it in 1612; and he hits upon a similar diction of "bosome" and "oblivion." But, though he may have been gratuitously challenging the wall of Shelton's newly printedDon Quixotein favour ofThe Knightas in existence by 1610 or 1611, the only interpretation of his "elder above a yeare" that would fit the fact is afforded by the composition of the play, as already demonstrated, in 1607-8, more than a year before Shelton began to circulate his manuscript.

In spite of Burre's assertion of the priority ofThe Knight of the Burning Pestle, nearly every editor or historian who has touched uponThe Knightinforms us that it is "undoubtedly derived fromDon Quixote."If (as I am sure was not the case) the play was written after 1608, Beaumont, or Beaumont and Fletcher, could have derived suggestions for it from Shelton's manuscript, first circulated in 1609. That Beaumont, at any rate, was acquainted with the Spanish hero by 1610, appears from his familiarity with theEpicoenein which as we have observed, Don Quixote is mentioned; for he wrote commendatory verses for the quarto of that play, entered S. R. September 20 of that year. If, on the other hand,The Knight, as I hold, was written in 1607 or 1608, the author or authors, provided they read Spanish, could have derived suggestions from Cervantes' original of 1605; or if they did not read Spanish, from hearsay. The latter source of information would be the more likely, for although sixteen of the ignorantly so-called "Beaumont and Fletcher" plays have been traced to plots in Spanish originals, there is not one of those plots which either of the poets might not have derived from English or French translation; and in none of the sixteen plays is there any evidence that either of the dramatists had a reading knowledge of Spanish.[209]As to the possibility of information by hearsay, other dramatists allude toDon Quixoteas early as 1607-8;[210]and, indeed, it would be virtuallyimpossible that any literary Londoner could have escaped the oral tradition of so popular and impressive a masterpiece two years after its publication.

All this supposition of derivation fromDon Quixoteis, however, so far as verbal indebtedness goes, or indebtedness formotifs, episodes, incidents and their sequence, characters, machinery, dramatic construction, manners, sentiments, and methods of satire, a phantom caught out of the clear sky. So far as the satire upon the contemporary literature of chivalry is concerned, when the ridicule is not of English stuff unknown to Cervantes it is of Spanish material translated into English and already satirized by Englishmen before Cervantes wrote hisDon Quixote. An examination ofThe Knightand of theDonin any version, and of contemporary English literature, reveals incontestibly not only that the material satirized, the phrases and ideas, come from works in English, but that even the method of the satire is derived from that of preceding English dramatic burlesque rather than from that of Cervantes.

The title of the play was suggested byThe Knight of the Burning Sword, an English translation, current long before 1607, of the SpanishAmadis of Greece, Prince and Knight of the Burning Sword. Ten full years before 1607 Falstaff had dubbed his red-nosed Bardolph "Knight of the Burning Lamp." The farcical, but eminently sane, grocer's apprentice, turned Knight for fun, grows out of Heywood'sFoure Prentises, and Day and Wilkins'sTravails, and the EnglishPalmerins, etc. He has absolutely nothingin common with the glorious but pathetically unbalancedDonof Cervantes. Nor is there any resemblance between Ralph's Palmerin-born Squire and Dwarf—and that embodiment of commonsense, Sancho Panza.[211]The specific conception ofThe Knight of the Burning Pestle, a satire upon the craze of London tradesmen for romances of chivalry, for "bunches of Ballads and Songs, all ancient," for the bombast and sensationalism of Kyd'sSpanish Tragedy, Marlowe'sTrue Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, even of Shakespeare's Hotspur, and of dramas of bourgeois knight-errantry,—a burlesque of the civic domestic virtues and military prowess of prentices and shop-keepers,—is much more applicable to the conditions and aspirations of contemporary Bow-Bells and the affectations of the contemporary stage than to those which begot and nourished the madness of the Knight of La Mancha.

Beaumont may have received from the success of theDon Quixoteof 1605 some impulse provocative to the writing ofThe Knight, but a dramatic satire, such asThe Knight, might have occurred to him ifDon Quixotehad never been written; just as that other dramatic satire upon the dramas of folk-lore romance,The Old Wives Tale, had occurred to Peele some fifteen years beforeDon Quixoteappeared; and as it had occurred to the author ofThersitesto ridicule, upon the stage, Greek tales of heroism and British worthies of knighthood and the greenwood still fifty-five years earlier. The puritan and the ritualist, the country justice and the squire, the schoolmasterand the scribbling pedant, the purveyor of marvels of forest and marsh, the knight-adventurer of ancient lore or of modern creation, the damsel distressed or enamoured of visionary castles, had, one and all, awakened laughter upon the Tudor stage. The leisure wasted, and the emotion misspent, over theMorte d'Arthurand the histories of Huon of Bordeaux, Guy of Warwick, Bevis of Hamptoun, or of Robin Hood and Clim of the Clough, had been deplored by many an anxious educator and essayist of the day. Why was it not time and the fit occasion, in a period when city grocers and their wives would tolerate no kind of play but such as revamped the more modern tales of chivalry, or tricked tradesmen out in the factitious glory of quite recent heroes of romance,—why was it not time for an attack upon the vogue of Anthony Munday's translations of the now offending cycles,Amadis of Gaul,Palmerin de Oliva,Palmerin of England, and upon the vogue of the English versions ofThe Mirror of Knighthoodwith its culminating bathos of theKnight of the Sunne and His Brother Rosicleer? These had, in various instalments, befuddled the popular mind for thirty years.

Ben Jonson already, in hisEvery Man out of His Humour(1599), had satirized the common affectation under the similitude of a country knight, Puntarvolo, who, if not crazed, was at any rate "wholly consecrated to singularity" by reason of undue absorption of romances of chivalry, a singularity of "fashion, phrase, and gesture" of the Anthony Munday type and the type glassed in theMirror of Knighthood.Sir Puntarvolo, who "sits a great horse" and "courts his own lady, as she were a stranger never encountered before,"—who feigns that his own house is a castle, who summons with trumpet-blast the waiting-woman to the window, and, saluting her "after some little flexure of the knee," asks for the lord of the edifice, and that the "beauties" of the "lady" may shine on this side of the building,—who "planet struck" by the "heavenly pulchritude" of his long-suffering and much bewildered poor old wife, conveys to her the information that he is a poor knight-errant pursuing through the forest a hart "escaped by enchantment," and that, wearied, he and his servant make "suit to enter" her fair abode,—Sir Puntarvolo, who every morning thus performs fantastic homage, what is he but a predecessor of Don Quixote and Ralph alike, fashioned out of the materials of decadent chivalric fiction common to both? In 1600, Robert Anton had burlesqued in prose and rhyme the romantic ballads of the day in his ludicrousHeroical Adventures of the Knight of the Sea, where "the queen of the fairies transforms a submissive and apathetic cow into a knight-errant to do her business in the world."[212]And in 1605, also before the appearance of Cervantes' burlesque, Chapman, with the collaboration of Jonson and Marston, had, inEastward Hoe, satirized that other kind of knight, him of the city and by purchase, in the character of Sir Petronel Flash; and, with him, the aspirations of romance-fed merchants' daughters who would wed knights and dwell in country-castles wrested fromgiants. Nor had these authors failed to specify the sources of delusion, theMirror of Knighthood, thePalmerin of England, etc. That both Beaumont and Fletcher were alive, without prompting from Cervantes, to the mania of chivalric emulation which obsessed the train-bands of London is attested by the bombastic talk of "Rosicleer" which Fletcher puts into the mouth of the city captain inPhilaster, a play that was written about two years later thanThe Knight, in 1609 or 1610. There had been musters of the City companies at Mile End as early as 1532, and again under Elizabeth in 1559, and 1585, and 1599, when as many as 30,000 citizens were trained there. But the muster in which Ralph had been chosen "citty captaine" was evidently that of 1605, a general muster under James I.

Why, then, should we suppose that it was beyond the genius of a Beaumont to conceive, as Peele, Jonson, Chapman, Marston, and others had conceived, a drama which should burlesque the devotees of such romances as were the fad of the day? And to conceive it without the remotest suggestion fromDon Quixote? Whether Beaumont read Spanish or not, and there is no proof that he did read it; whether he had heard ofDon Quixoteor not, and there is little doubt that he had, there is nothing inThe Knight of the Burning Pestlethat in any way presupposes either verbal acquaintance with, or constructive dependence upon, the burlesque of Cervantes.[213]In short,Professor Schevill, in the article cited above, and following him Dr. Murch, in an admirable introduction to his edition ofThe Knight, have shown that Beaumont's conception of the hero, Ralph, not only is not of a piece with, but is fundamentally different from, Cervantes' conception of Don Quixote; and they have demonstrated with a minuteness of chapter and verse that need not be recapitulated here that the motives, machinery and characters, ideas and phrases are, in so far as they have relation to romances of chivalry, drawn out of, or suggested by, the English translations already enumerated. This demonstration applies to the adoption of the squire, the rescue of Mrs. Merrythought, the incident of the casket, the liberation of the barber's patients, the mock-heroic love-affair, as well as to the often adduced barber's basin and the scene of the inn. Of the situations, there is none that is not a logical issue of the local conditions or the presuppositions of an original plot; whereas there are, on the other hand, numerous situations inDon Quixote, capable of dramatic treatment, that the Elizabethan playwright of 1607-8 could hardly have refrained from annexing if he had used that story as a source. The setting or background ofThe Knight, as Professor Schevill has said, in no way recalls that of theDon, "and it is difficult to see how any inspiration got from Cervantes should have failed to include at least a slight shadow of something which implies an acquaintance with Rocinanteand Sancho Panza." Beaumont, in addition, not only satirizes, as I have said, the chivalric and bourgeois dramas of Heywood,If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody, etc., and dramas of romantic marvel likeMucedorusand theTravails, and parodies with rare humour the rant of Senecan tragedy; he not only ridicules the military ardour and pomp of the London citizens, and pokes fun at their unsophisticated assumption of dramatic insight and critical instinct,—with all this satire of the main plot and of the spectator-gods in the machinery, he has combined a romantic plot of common life—Jasper, Luce, and Humphrey,—and a comic plot of humours in which Jasper's father, mother, and brother live as Merrythoughts should. He has produced a whole that in drama was an innovation and in burlesque a triumph.The Knightwas still an acting play in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. During the past thirteen years it has been acted by academic amateurs five times in America.

Back to Index Next