FOOTNOTES:

THE TEMPLE From Ralph Agas's Map of London, about 1561THE TEMPLEFrom Ralph Agas's Map of London, about 1561

It was first printed at the end of a play calledThe Nice Valourin the folio of 1647. Owing to a careless acceptance of the rubric prefixed to it by the publishers of that folio, historians have ordinarily dated its composition at too early a period. The poem itself mentions "Sutcliffe's wit," referring to three controversial tracts of the Dean of Exeter, printed in 1606; but Beaumont might jibe at the Dean's expense for years after 1606. The rubic inscribed a generation after the death of both our dramatists, and therefore of but secondary importance, tells us that theLetterwas "written, before he [Beaumont] and Master Fletcher came to London, with two of the precedent comedies, then not finish'd, which deferr'd their merry meetings at the Mermaid." We know that the young men had been in London for years before 1606. If the rubric has any meaning whatever, it is merely that the customary convivialities at the Mermaid, as described in theLetter, had been interrupted by a visit to the country during whichthey were finishing two of the comedies which precedeThe Nice Valourin the folio; and it indicates a date not earlier than 1608, for the writing of the letter, and probably not later than July 1610. For only three of the fifteen plays which appear in the folio beforeThe Nice Valourcould have been completed during the career of Beaumont as a dramatist, and none of the three antedates 1608. In two of these Beaumont had no hand:The Captaine, which may have been composed as late as 1611, andBeggars' Bush,[65]which shows the collaboration of Massinger, but Fletcher's part of which may have been written in 1608. The only one of the "precedent comedies" in which we may be sure that Beaumont collaborated isThe Coxcombe. If, as I believe, it was acted first between December 1609 and July 1610[66]it may well have been written in the country during the latter half of 1609, while the plague rate was exceptionally high in London. BothBeggars' BushandThe Coxcombeabound in rural scenes; but the latter especially, in scenes that might have been suggested by Grace-Dieu and its neighborhood.

The rubric prefixed to theLetterby the publishers is of negligible authority. The 'me' and 'us' of theLetteritself do not necessarily designate Fletcher as the companion of Beaumont's rustication: they stand at one time for country-folk; at another for the Mermaid circle, Jonson, Chapman, Fletcher, probably Shakespeare, Drayton, Cotton, Donne, Hugh Holland,Tom Coryate, Richard Martin, Selden (of Beaumont's Inner Temple), and other famous wits and poets; at another for Jonson and Beaumont alone. The date of the poem must be determined from internal evidence. It is written with the careless ease of long-standing intimacy. It is of a genial, jocose, and fairly mature, epistolary style. It betrays the literary assurance of one whose reputation is already established. Beaumont is in temporary banishment from London, for lack of funds—therefore, considerably later than 1606, when he was presumably well off; for in that year he had just come into a quarter of his brother, Sir Henry's, private estate. He longs now for the stimulus of the merry meetings in Bread-street, as one whose wit has been sharpened by them for a long time past:

Methinks the little wit I had is lostSince I saw you; for Wit is like a RestHeld up at Tennis, which men do the bestWith the best gamesters; ...

up here in Leicestershire "The Countrey Gentlemen begin to allow My wit for dry bobs." "In this warm shine" of our hay-making season, soberly deferring to country knights, listening to hoary family-jests, drinking water mixed with claret-lees, "I lye and dream of your full Mermaid Wine":

What things have we seenDone at the Mermaid! heard words that have beenSo nimble, and so full of subtill flame,As if that every one from whence they cameHad meant to put his whole wit in a jest,And had resolv'd to live a foole, the restOf his dull life. Then, when there hath been thrownWit able enough to justifie the TownFor three daies past,—wit that might warrant beFor the whole City to talk foolishlyTill that were cancell'd,—and, when that was gone,We left an Aire behind us, which aloneWas able to make the two next CompaniesRight witty; though but downright fooles, more wise.

When he remembers all this, he "needs must cry," but one thought of Ben Jonson cheers him:

Only strong Destiny, which all controuls,I hope hath left a better fate in storeFor me thy friend, than to live ever poore,Banisht unto this home. Fate once againeBring me to thee, who canst make smooth and plaineThe way of Knowledge for me, and then I,Who have no good but in thy companyProtest it will my greatest comfort beTo acknowledge all I have to flow from thee.Ben, when these Scaenes are perfect, we'll taste wine;I'll drink thy Muses health, thou shalt quaff mine.

TheLetterwas written after Beaumont's Muse had produced something worthy of a toast from Jonson,—theWoman-Haterand theKnight, for instance (both marked by wit and by the discipline of Jonson); but not later than the end of 1612, for during most of 1613 Jonson was traveling in France as governor to Sir Walter Raleigh's "knavishly inclined" son; and after February of that year Beaumont wrote so far as I venture to conclude but one drama,The Scornful Ladie; and that does not precede thisLetterin the folio of 1647; is not printed in that folio at all. Nor was thisLetterof a disciple written later than the great Beaumont-Fletcher plays of 1610-1611, for then Jonson was praising Beaumont for "writing better" than he himself. If there is any truth at all in the rubric to theLetter, the "scenes" of which Beaumont speaks as not yet "perfect" were ofThe Coxcombe; and evidence which I shall, in the proper place, adduce convinces me that that was first acted before March 25, 1610, perhaps before January 4. The play would, then, have been written about the end of 1609.

I do not wonder that, as the Prologue in the first folio tells us, it was "condemned by the ignorant multitude," not only because of its length, a fault removed in the editions which we possess, but because the larger part of the play is written by Fletcher, and in his most inartistic, and irrational, licentious vein. Beaumont, though admitted to the partnership, had not yet succeeded in hanging "plummets" on his friend's luxuriance. He contented himself with contributing to a theme of Boccaccian cuckoldry the subplot of how Ricardo, drunk, loses his betrothed, and finds her again and is forgiven,—a little story that contains all the poignancy of sorrow and poppy of romance and poetry of innocence that make the comedy readable and tolerable.

As to the first production of thePhilastera word must be said here, because the event marks the earliest association, concerning which we have any assurance, of the young dramatists with Shakespeare. Untilabout 1609 they appear to have written for the Paul's Boys, who acted, probably in their singing-school, until 1607; and for the Queen's Revels' Children who, under various managements, had been occupying Richard Burbadge's theatre of Blackfriars since 1597. Their association with the Paul's Boys would of itself have brought them into touch with other Paul's dramatists, Dekker, Webster, Middleton, and Chapman. In their association with the Queen's Revels' Children they had been thrown closely together with Chapman again, with Jonson, and with John Day, all of whom wrote for Blackfriars; and with Marston, who not only wrote plays for the Children but had a financial interest in the company. Some of these dramatists,—Jonson, for instance, and Webster,—had occasionally written for Shakespeare's company during these years; but we have no proof that Beaumont and Fletcher had any connection with the King's Players of Shakespeare's company, as long as the Children's companies continued in their usual course at St. Paul's singing-school and Blackfriars. After 1606, however, the Paul's Boys were on the wane. Perhaps they are to be indentified with the new Children of the King's Revels, and an occupancy of Whitefriars, in 1607; but that clue soon disappears. And as to the Queen's Revels' Children, we find that in April 1608 they were suppressed for ridiculing royalty upon the stage.[67]Their manager, Henry Evans, to whom with three others Richard Burbadge had let Blackfriars in 1600, now sought to be set free fromthe contract; and in August 1608, the Burbadges (Richard and Cuthbert), Shakespeare, Heming, Condell, and Slye of the King's Company, took over the lease which still had many years to run.[68]Shakespeare's company had been acting at the Burbadges' theatre of the Globe since 1599,—as the Lord Chamberlain's till 1603; after that, as his Majesty's Servants. Now Shakespeare's company took charge of Blackfriars, as well; and, under their management, for about a month between December 7, 1609 and January 4, 1610 the Queen's Revels' Children, being reinstated in royal favour, resumed their acting at Blackfriars. On the latter date, the Children as reorganized, opened at Whitefriars under the management of Philip Rossiter and others; and among the first plays presented by them, there, were Jonson'sEpicoeneand, I believe, Beaumont and Fletcher'sThe Coxcombe.

But, in the process of readjustment at Blackfriars, our young partners in dramatic production must have been drawn into professional relationship with the members of Shakespeare's company and undoubtedly with Shakespeare himself. From the first quarto ofPhilaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding, published in 1620, we learn that this, the earliest of their great tragicomedies, was acted not by the Queen's Revels' Children, but by the King's Players, and at the Globe. From the second quarto, of 1622, we learn that it was acted also at Blackfriars: it may indeed have been first presented there. Our earliest record of the playshows that it was in existence before October 8, 1610.The Scourge of Follyby John Davies of Hereford, entered for publication on that date, contains an epigram to "the well deserving Mr. John Fletcher," which runs—

Love lies a-Bleeding, if it should not proveHer utmost art to show why it doth love.Thou being theSubject(now), It raignes upon,Raign'st inArte, Judgement, and Invention:For this I love thee; and can doe no lesseFor thine as faire, as faithfullSheepheardesse.

Since there is nothing inPhilaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding, to indicate a date of composition earlier than 1608, and since this is the first of Beaumont and Fletcher's dramas to be performed by Shakespeare's company, we may be fairly certain that the performance followed the readjustment of affairs between the Globe and Blackfriars in August of that year. Now, there had been regulations for years past of the City authorities and the Privy Council in accordance with which theatre in the City proper and the suburbs of Surrey and Middlesex were closed whenever the number of deaths by plague exceeded a certain limit per week. In and after 1608 this limit was set at forty; and it is probable that, in accordance with a still older regulation, the ban was not lifted until it was evident that the decrease in deaths was more than temporary.[69]That actors sometimes performed at Court while the plague rate was still prohibitive in and about the City, does not by any means justify usin assuming that they were ever allowed at such times to play in theatres thronged by the public.[70]Between August 8, 1608 and October 8, 1610, the only continuous period in which plays might have been presented by Shakespeare's company at the Globe or Blackfriars, without violating the plague law, was from December 7, 1609 to July 12, 1610; and we therefore conclude that it was during those months that Beaumont and Fletcher'sPhilasterwas first acted. The only other abatement of the plague that might have given promise of continuance was between March 2 and 23, 1609; but on March 9 the rate of deaths rose again above forty, and it is not likely that the authorities would have permitted the theatres to resume operations during those three weeks.[71]

THE GLOBE THEATRE, WITH ST. PAUL'S IN THE BACKGROUND From Vischer's long view of London, 1616THE GLOBE THEATRE, WITH ST. PAUL'S IN THE BACKGROUNDFrom Vischer's long view of London, 1616

WithPhilasterBeaumont and Fletcher leaped into the foremost rank as dramatists. I have so much to say of this tragicomedy in my discussion of the authorship of its successive scenes, that but a word may here be said concerning the reasons for its success. Hitherto, practically Shakespeare alone had written for the King's Servants romantic comedies of a serious cast; and they were generally based upon some well-known story. Here was a comedy of serious kind with a romantic and original plot, by authors comparatively new to the general public, written in a style refreshingly unhackneyed, and played in the best theatres and by the best company that London possessed. The Hamlet-like hero seeking his kingdom and his princess—thedaughter of the usurper—and, through misunderstandings and misadventures, tragic apprehensions, swiftly succeeding crises, bloodshed, riot, and surprising reversals of fortune, attaining both birth-right and love; the pathetic innocence and nobly futile devotion of his girl-page; the triangular affair of the affections; the humour of the secondary characters; the allurements of spectacle and masque; the atmosphere of the palace, heroic,—of the country, idyllic,—of Mile-end and its roarers of the borough, somewhat burlesque,—the diapason of the poetry from bourdon to flute,—all combined to win immediate and long continuing favour, both of the City and the Court. Beaumont had, here, become to some extent "the sobriety of Fletcher's wit"; he had restrained "his quick free will,"—not, however, so much by pruning what Fletcher wrote as by admitting him to but one-quarter of the composition. Something of the intrigue, the bustle, the spectacle, the easy conversation are Fletcher's; and his, such sexual vulgarity—very little—as stamps a scene or two. The rest is Beaumont's. As in the two great romantic dramas which followed, and in Beaumont's subplot ofThe Coxcombe, the story is of the authors' own invention. It is not necessary to trace the girl-page and her devotion to the Diana of Montemayor, or to Bandello, or even to Sidney'sArcadia. The girl-page was a commonplace of fiction at the time; and the differences in the conduct of this part of the story are greater than the resemblances to any one of those sources. Much more evidently is the devoted Euphrasia-Bellario a younger sister of Shakespeare's Viola. But, in general,external influences bear upon details of character, situation, and device, not upon the construction of the play as a whole.

Toward the end of 1610 or early in 1611, the partner-dramatists gave Shakespeare's company another play,—in many respects their greatest,—The Maides Tragedy. Here, again, the novelty of the plot attracted, in a degree heightened even beyond that ofPhilaster. The terrible dilemma of the duped husband between allegiance to the King who has wronged him and assertion of his marital honour, the astounding effrontery of his adulterous wife, her gradual acquirement of a soul and her attempted expiation of lust by murder, the mingled nobility and unreason of her brother and her husband, and the pathetic devotion and self-provoked death of the hero's deserted sweetheart, will be sufficiently discussed elsewhere. This was the highly seasoned fare that the Jacobean public desiderated, served in courses, if not more novel, at any rate of more startling variety than even Shakespeare had offered—whose devices, restrained within limit, these young dramatists were exaggerating to then-th degree. As four-fifths of the composition of this tragedy was Beaumont's, so, too, we may be sure, four-fifths of the conception and invention of the plot.[72]I have remarked, incidentally, that none of the great Beaumont-Fletcher plots is borrowed. Nearly every play, on the other hand, which Fletcher contrived alone, or in company with others than Beaumont, borrows its plot, major and minor, from some well known source, classical, historical, French,Spanish, or Italian. Mr. G. C. Macaulay states the bare truth, when he says that "in constructive faculty, at least, Beaumont was markedly superior to his colleague." Here there are traces, indeed, of external suggestion: something of Aspatia's career in relation to Amintor, who has deserted her, may be an echo of Parthenia's in theArcadia; and the quarrel of Melantius and Amintor reminds one of that between Brutus and Cassius inJulius Cæsar; but the plot has no definite source.

The characterization and the poetry, "the strength and sweetness, and high choice of brain" are Beaumont's; so, too, the marvelous subtlety of dramatic device. Save in that one-fifth to which Fletcher was admitted. There Fletcher, in beauty and in tragic power, is giving us the best that he has so far produced: over-histrionic, to be sure, but of victorious excellence. And that one-fifth, for the first and almost only time in Fletcher's career as a dramatist is "untainted by obscenity."

In an anecdote preserved by Fuller, who was seventeen years of age when Fletcher died, we may fancy that we catch a glimpse of our bachelors at work upon this very play. The dramatists "meeting once in a Tavern to contrive the rude draught of a Tragedy, Fletcher undertook toKill the Kingtherein; whose words being overheard by a listener (though his Loyalty not to be blamed herein) he was accused of high Treason, till the mistake soon appearing, that the plot was only against a Drammatick and Scenical King, all wound off in merriment."[73]History and fable havefastened similar stories upon famous men; but if this one is authentic it undoubtedly refers to the writing ofThe Maides Tragedy, for, as we shall see, the killing of its King was one of the few scenes contributed by Fletcher. And the story adds colour to the ridicule which Beaumont in 1607 had heaped upon the intelligencer that lives in ale-houses and taverns; ... "and brings informations picked out of broken words in men's common talk."

The connection thus formed with Shakespeare's company was continued by Beaumont, at any rate, until 1612, and by Fletcher as long as he lived. Before the end of 1611 the King's Players had presented to the public the last of this trio of dramatic masterpieces,A King and No King. In terrible fascination, this story of a man and woman struggling against love because they think they are brother and sister is as powerful asThe Maides Tragedy. In poetry and in characterization, as well as in humour, it is grander thanPhilaster. But in beauty and pathos its subject did not permit it to equal either; and in dénouement, tragicomic and perforce somewhat strained, it is surpassed by theTragedy. Of its defects as well as merits, I have so much to say later, that I must refrain now. The plot is as striking an example of constructive invention as those that had preceded. Some of the names are to be found in Xenophon'sCyropædeia(Books III-VI) and in Herodotus (Book VII); and hints for situation and characterization may have been derived from these sources, and the passion of Arbaces for his supposed sister from Fauchet's account of Thierry ofFrance,—but such indebtedness is naught.[74]Three-quarters of the play is Beaumont's; and that large portion includes the majestic passion and conflict, the tragic irony and suspense, ofA King and No King; in fact,—the whole serious plot, and part of the humorous by-play. Fletcher's slight contribution is principally of complementary scenes and low comedy. In these the curb upon his fanciful rhetoric and hilarious wit has been somewhat relaxed. In the character of the roaring Bessus, Beaumont himself gives rein with theélanof the comic artist; for the Bessus of Beaumont's scenes would have gone on a strike if he had not been suffered to "talk bawdy" between brags. Beaumont for all his sobriety and clean mirth was not a prude; and he wasn't writing the psalms of Robert Wisdom.

This play was as popular as those that had preceded. The King's Players acted it at Court in December of the year in which it had been first performed. And between October 1612 and March 1613, assisting in the festivities for the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth with the Elector Palatine, they presented before royalty all three of the great Beaumont-Fletcher plays. These were numbers in a series of thirteen that included, as well, theMuch Ado,Tempest,Winter's Tale,Merry Wives,Othello, andJulius Caesarof Shakespeare. They also presented about the same time, in a series of six acted before the King (includingI Henry IV,Much Ado, andThe Alchemist), oneof Fletcher's comedies of manners and intrigue,The Captaine, and a play utterly lost, calledCardenna, in which it is supposed that Fletcher collaborated with the Master himself.

That our dramatists, however, after their association was formed with Shakespeare and his company, by no means severed their connection with the company for which they had written in their younger days, the Children of the Queen's Revels, appears from the fact that during the same festivities a tragedy written by them about 1611,Cupid's Revenge, was played by the Children three times, and their romantic comedy,The Coxcombetwice; and that, in 1615 or the beginning of 1616, the Children presented at the new Blackfriars what was, probably, the last product of the Beaumont-Fletcher partnership,The Scornful Ladie.

NeitherCupid's RevengenorThe Scornful Ladie(though the latter, at least, was very popular and had a long life upon the stage) is a drama of high distinction. The former is a blend of two stories from Sidney'sArcadia,—the story of the vengeance of Cupid upon the princess Erona (Hidaspes in the play) who caused to be destroyed the images and pictures of Cupid, and was consequently doomed to an infatuation for a base-born man,—and the painful career of Plangus (Leucippus in the play) who, having an intrigue "with a private man's wife" (the monstrous Bacha of the play) gave her up to his father, swearing to her virtue, only to find that she should attempt to renew herliaisonwith him and, failing, scheme his downfall. The dramatists made considerable alteration,and added to the sources. But though the main plot—that of Leucippus and Bacha—offered magnificent possibilities, they fail of realization. Beaumont wrote about one-half of the play, and it is in his scenes that whatever there is of moral struggle and sublimity, of pathetic irony and of poetry, appears.

The Scornful Ladie, which I assign to this late date partly because of an allusion to the negotiations for a Spanish marriage, 1614-1616, is principally of Fletcher's composition. It is of the type of his earlier and later comedies of intrigue. Like most of them it is extremely well contrived for presentation upon the stage and it was, as I have said, most successful. The merit of the play lies, not in any element of poetry or vital romance, but in humorous and realistic characterization, easy dialogue, and clever device. The dramatists deserve all credit for the ingenious invention, for here again there is no known source. Beaumont's contribution, about one-third, is distinguished by the observation and thevis comicaalready displayed in theWoman-Haterand theKnight of the Burning PestleandKing and No King. But he is not dominating the details. When they wrote a comedy of intrigue, Fletcher sat at the head of the table. It is possible, however, that some of the "rules and standard wit" which Francis was so soon to leave to his friend "in legacy" were here applied; for the play is less exuberantly reckless in tone than several which Fletcher wrote alone. The three masterpieces of romantic drama, Beaumont controlled in composition,and revised. Of this play he did not finish the revision. It was written about 1614 or 1615, after he had settled in the country with his wife, and not long before his death.[75]

FOOTNOTES:[63]Aubrey'sBrief Lives, Ed. Clark, I, 94-95.[64]Dyce,B. and F., I, XXVI,n.[65]Based upon Dekker'sBellman of London, 1608. Acted at Court, 1622.[66]See Chapter XXV, below.[67]Despatch of the French Ambassador in London, April 5, 1608, quoted by Collier,Hist. Eng. Dram. Poetry, I, 352.[68]Answer of Heming and Burbadge to Kirkham's complaint, 1612,Greenstreet Papersin Fleay,Hist. Stage, p. 235.[69]See Murray,Eng. Dram. Comp., II, 171-191.[70]As suggested by Thorndike,Infl. B. and F. on Shakespeare, 16-18. See Murray,Engl. Dram. Companies, II, 175.[71]Further discussion of thePhilasterdate will be found in Chapter XXV, below.[72]See Chapter XXV, below.[73]Dyce, as above,B. and F., I, xxxii.[74]See Alden's edition, p. 172 (Belles Lettres), and Thorndike's citation of Fauchet,Les Antiquitez et Histoires Gauloises, etc.(1599),Infl. of B. and F., p. 82.[75]See below, Chapter XXVI.

[63]Aubrey'sBrief Lives, Ed. Clark, I, 94-95.

[64]Dyce,B. and F., I, XXVI,n.

[65]Based upon Dekker'sBellman of London, 1608. Acted at Court, 1622.

[66]See Chapter XXV, below.

[67]Despatch of the French Ambassador in London, April 5, 1608, quoted by Collier,Hist. Eng. Dram. Poetry, I, 352.

[68]Answer of Heming and Burbadge to Kirkham's complaint, 1612,Greenstreet Papersin Fleay,Hist. Stage, p. 235.

[69]See Murray,Eng. Dram. Comp., II, 171-191.

[70]As suggested by Thorndike,Infl. B. and F. on Shakespeare, 16-18. See Murray,Engl. Dram. Companies, II, 175.

[71]Further discussion of thePhilasterdate will be found in Chapter XXV, below.

[72]See Chapter XXV, below.

[73]Dyce, as above,B. and F., I, xxxii.

[74]See Alden's edition, p. 172 (Belles Lettres), and Thorndike's citation of Fauchet,Les Antiquitez et Histoires Gauloises, etc.(1599),Infl. of B. and F., p. 82.

[75]See below, Chapter XXVI.

RELATIONS WITH SHAKESPEARE, JONSON, AND OTHERS IN THE THEATRICAL WORLD

Though the young poets did not begin to write for the King's Men before 1609, it is impossible that they should not have met Shakespeare, face to face, earlier in the century, whether at the Mermaid in Bread-street, Cheapside, where perhaps befel those "wit-combates betwixt him and Ben Jonson," or about the Globe in Southwark or the theatre in Blackfriars,—which, though leased to the Revels' Children, belonged to Shakespeare's friend Richard Burbadge,—or at the lodgings with Mountjoy the tiremaker, on the corner of Silver and Monkwell Streets, where the master had lived from 1598 to 1604, and where, for anything we know to the contrary, he continued to live for several years more.[76]They would pass the house on their way from the Bankside north to St. Giles, Cripplegate, when they wished to observe what Juby and the rest of the Prince's Players were putting on at the Fortune, or on their way back to take ale with Jonson at his house in Blackfriars, or to follow Nat. Field or Carey, acting in one of their own or Jonson's plays at the private theatre close by.

That the young poets, even during their discipleship to Jonson were familiar with the poetry and dramatic methods of Shakespeare the most cursory reader will observe. Their plays from the first, whether jointly or singly written, abound in reminiscences of his work. But more particularly is he echoed by Beaumont. The echo is sometimes of playful parody, as in the "huffing part" which the grocer's prentice of theKnight of the Burning Pestlesteals from Hotspur:—

By heaven, methinks it were an easie leapTo pluck bright honour from the pale-fac'd Moon,Or dive into the bottom of the Sea,Where never fathome line toucht any ground,And pluck up drownèd honour from the lake of Hell;

or as inThe Woman-Hater, where it looks very much as if this stylist of twenty-two was poking fun at the circumlocutions of Shakespeare's Helena inAll's Well that Ends Well. Labouring to say "two days" in accents suitable to a monarch's ear, she had evolved:

Ere twice the horses of the sun shall bringTheir fiery torches his diurnal ring,Ere twice in murk and accidental dampMoist Hesperus hath quenched his sleepy lamp;Or four and twenty times the pilot's glassHath told the thievish minutes how they pass,What is infirm from your sound parts shall fly.

In terms strikingly reminiscent of this, Beaumont's courtier Valore instructs the gourmand ofThe Woman-Hater, how to address royalty:

You must not talk to him [the Duke]As you doe to an ordinary man,Honest plain sence, but you must wind about him.For example: if he should aske you what o'clock it is,You must not say, "If it please your grace, 'tis nine";But thus, "Thrice three aclock, so please my Sovereign";Or thus, "Look how many Muses there doth dwellUpon the sweet banks of the learned Well,And just so many stroaks the clock hath struck."

And when the Duke asks Lazarillo, thus instructed, "how old are you?" we can imagine with what mirth the graceless Beaumont puts into his mouth:

Full eight and twenty several AlmanacksHave been compiled all for several years,Since first I drew this breath; four prentishipsHave I most truly served in this world;And eight and twenty times hath Phoebus' carRun out his yearly course since—.Duke.I understand you, sir.Lucio.How like an ignorant poet he talks!

Is it possible that associating with the literary school of the day, his brother John, Drayton, Chapman, and Ben Jonson, the young satirist, here vents something like spleen? Or is this purely dramatic utterance?

Like parodies of phrases inHamlet,Antony and Cleopatra, and other Shakespearean plays ripple the stream of Beaumont's humour. They are, however, always good-natured. But if Beaumont laughs when Shakespeare exaggerates, he also pays him in his later plays the tribute of imitation in numerous poetic borrowings of serious lines and telling situations: aswhere the King inPhilastertries to pray but, like the kneeling Claudius, despairs—

How can ILooke to be heard of gods that must be just,Praying upon the ground I hold by wrong?—

or "in the Hamlet-like situation and character of Philaster" himself; as, for instance, when to the usurping King who has said of him, "Sure hees possest," Philaster retorts:

Yes, with my fathers spirit. Its here, O King,A dangerous spirit! Now he tells me, King,I was a Kings heire, bids me be a King,And whispers to me, these are all my subjects.Tis strange he will not let me sleepe, but divesIn to my fancy, and there gives me shapesThat kneele and doe me service, cry me king:But I'le suppresse him: he's a factious spirit,And will undoe me.

The resemblance of the controversy between Melantius and Amintor to that of Brutus with Cassius has already been noticed; and everyone will acknowledge the resemblance of the "quizzical reserve" of his Scornful Lady to Olivia's, of Aspatia's melancholy in theMaides Tragedyto Ophelia's, and of Bellario's situation inPhilasterto that of Viola inTwelfth Night.[77]This last play, indeed, acted, as we have seen, in theMiddle Temple when Beaumont was a freshman in the Inns of Court, affects Beaumont's method and style, more than any other save thePericles(1607, or January to May 1608), which prepared the way for the more important later romantic dramas of Shakespeare himself as well as for those of Beaumont and Fletcher.

During the years when Shakespeare's company was producing their romantic dramas, they were breathing, with Shakespeare, Burbadge, and Heming, the atmosphere of the Globe and Blackfriars; and, after Shakespeare had taken up a more continuous residence at Stratford, in 1611, Fletcher, at any rate, not only kept in touch with the remaining shareholders and actors of the Globe but with the Master himself, and conversed and wrote with him on various occasions. These may have fallen either at the New Place at Stratford, where the now wealthy country gentleman was wont to entertain his friends, or when Shakespeare came to town—as in May 1612. At that time his former host, Mountjoy's, son-in-law was suing the tiremaker for his wife's unpaid dower, and "William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon in the Countye of Warwicke, Gentleman" who had helped to make the marriage, was summoned as a witness.[78]Or between July and November of that year, when the "base fellow" Kirkham was bringing against Burbadge and Heming a suit concerning the profits of the Blackfriars theatre, in which as a shareholder Shakespeare, too, must have been interested; and when ChristopherBrooke of the pastoral poets in Beaumont's Inns of Court was of the "councell" for Shakespeare's company.[79]Or in March 1613, when Shakespeare was negotiating for the house in Blackfriars which he bought that month from Henry Walker. In the latter year the King's Players performed two plays in the writing of which there is reason to believe that Shakespeare and Fletcher participated:The Two Noble Kinsmen, first published as "by the memorable worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakespeare, gentlemen," in a quarto of 1634; and a lost play licensed for publication as the "History of Cardenioby Fletcher and Shakespeare," in 1653. Of the former, critics are generally agreed that Fletcher wrote about a dozen scenes and that Shakespeare in all probability wrote others. Maybe, however, Fletcher, and perhaps later Massinger, merely revised and completed Shakespeare's original draft of the play left in the company's hands. ThatThe Two Noble Kinsmenborrows its antimasque from our friend Beaumont'sMaske of the Inner Temple, which was presented in February 1613, may be construed as indicating that he, too, still had some connection with Shakespeare's company. But it is more likely that he was now happily married and settled in Kent, and didn't care what they did with his plays. Probably the Shakespeare-Fletcher play was acted soon after Beaumont's, and in the same year. With regard to the authorship of theCardeniowe have nothing but the publisher's statement; but we know that the play was written after the appearance, in 1612, of the storyupon which it is based, in Shelton's English translation of the first part ofDon Quixote; and that it was acted at Court by Shakespeare's and Fletcher's company in May and June 1613.

The partnership of Fletcher and Shakespeare in the writing of these two plays has been questioned, but as to their collaboration in a third,Henry VIII, there is not much possibility of doubt. In the conception of the leading characters Shakespeare is present, and in many of their finest lines, and specifically in at least five scenes; while Fletcher appears in practically all the rest. The play was acted by the King's Men at the Globe on June 29, 1613, and was included as Shakespeare's by his judicious editors and intimate friends, Heming and Condell, in the folio of 1623.

BEN JONSON From the miniature belonging to Mr. Evelyn ShirleyBEN JONSONFrom the miniature belonging to Mr. Evelyn Shirley

BEN JONSONFrom the miniature belonging to Mr. Evelyn Shirley

During these years of fruition the friendship with Jonson, who was writing at the time for both the companies to which our young dramatists gave their plays, continued apparently without interruption. It is attested by commendatory verses written by Beaumont forThe Silent Woman, which was acted early in 1610, and by verses of both Fletcher and Beaumont prefixed to Jonson's tragedy ofCatiline, published in 1611. On the latter occasion Beaumont commends Jonson's contempt for "the wild applause of common people," and declares that he is "three ages yet from understood;" while Fletcher even more enthusiastically avers,—

Thy labours shall outlive thee; and, like goldStampt for continuance, shall be current whereThere is a sun, a people, or a year.

The generous and graceful response of Ben to thereverence of the younger of the twain appears in a tribute the date of which is uncertain, but which was included by the author among hisEpigrams, entered in the Stationers' Registers, 1612.

To Francis Beaumont.How I doe love thee, Beaumont and thy Muse,That unto me dost such religion use!How I doe feare my selfe, that am not worthThe least indulgent thought thy pen drops forth!At once thou mak'st me happie, and unmak'st;And giving largely to me, more thou tak'st.What fate is mine, that so it selfe bereaves?What art is thine, that so thy friend deceives?When even there, where most thou praisest mee,For writing better, I must envie thee.

Since Jonson was not given to indiscriminate laudation of his contemporaries in dramatic production, we may surmise that this tribute to the art of Beaumont follows rather than precedes the appearance ofPhilaster, and of perhaps bothThe Maides TragedyandA King and No King. And whether there is any basis or not for the tradition handed down by Dryden[80]that Beaumont was "so accurate a judge of plays that Ben Jonson, while he lived, submitted all his writings to his censure, and, 'tis thought, used his judgment in correcting, if not contriving, all his plots,"—there is here evidence, sufficiently convincing, of the high esteem in which "the least indulgent thought" and the large "giving" of the brilliant and independent gentleman-dramatist were held by the acknowledged classicist and dictator of the stage.

From the various sources already indicated and from contemporary testimony, later to be cited, it is easy to derive a definite conception of the world of dramatists and actors in which Beaumont and Fletcher moved. They knew, and were properly appraised by, Drayton, Jonson, Chapman, Shakespeare, Webster, Dekker, Heywood, Massinger, Field, Daborne, Marston, Day, and Middleton,—with all of whom they were associated either in combats of poetry and wit or in the presentation of plays at Blackfriars, Whitefriars, or the Globe. Among actors their acquaintance included Field, Taylor, Carey, and others of the Queen's Revels' Children, and Richard Burbadge, Heming, Condell, Ostler, Cook, and Lowin of the King's Company. In what esteem they were held during these years we have evidence in the verses already quoted from Drayton, Jonson, Chapman, and Field. In the generous dedication ofThe White Devilby John Webster, in 1612, we find them ranked with the best: "Detraction," says he, "is the sworne friend to ignorance. For mine owne part I have ever truly cherisht my good opinion of other mens worthy Labours, especially of that full and haightened stile of MaisterChapman: The labour'd and understanding workes of maisterJonson: The no lesse worthy composures of the both worthily excellent MaisterBeamontand MaisterFletcher: And lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of M.Shake-speare, M.Decker, and M.Heywood, wishing what I write may be read by their light: Protesting that, in the strength of mine owne judgement, Iknow them so worthy, that though I rest silent in my owne worke, yet to most of theirs I dare (without flattery) fix that ofMartiall—non norunt, Haec monumenta mori."

Back to Index Next