FOOTNOTES:

In the large book of Playes you late did printIn Beaumont's and in Fletcher's name, why in'tDid you not justice? Give to each his due?For Beaumont of those many writ in few,And Massinger in other few; the MainBeing sole Issues of sweet Fletcher's brain.But how came I (you ask) so much to know?Fletcher's chief bosome-friend informed me so.I' the next impression therefore justice do,And print their old ones in one volume too;For Beaumont's works and Fletcher's should come forth,With all the right belonging to their worth.

JOHN FLETCHER From the painting in the National Portrait Gallery Painter unknown but contemporaryJOHN FLETCHERFrom the painting in the National Portrait GalleryPainter unknown but contemporary

JOHN FLETCHERFrom the painting in the National Portrait GalleryPainter unknown but contemporary

In still another poem, printed in 1662, but written not long after 1647, and addressed to his cousin, Charles Cotton, Sir Aston returns to the charge:

I wonder, Cousin, that you would permitSo great an Injury to Fletcher's wit,Your friend and old Companion, that his fameShould be divided to another's name.If Beaumont had writ those Plays, it had beenAgainst his merits a detracting Sin,Had they been attributed also toFletcher. They were two wits and friends, and whoRobs from the one to glorify the other,Of these great memories is a partial Lover.Had Beaumont liv'd when this Edition cameForth, and beheld his ever living nameBefore Plays that he never writ, how heHad frown'd and blush'd at such Impiety!His own Renown no such Addition needsTo have a Fame sprung from another's deedes:And my good friend Old Philip MassingerWith Fletcher writ in some that we see there.But you may blame the Printers: yet you mightPerhaps have won them to do Fletcher right,Would you have took the pains; for what a foulAnd unexcusable fault it is (that wholeVolume of plays being almost every oneAfter the death of Beaumont writ) that noneWould certifie them so much! I wish as freeY' had told the Printers this, as you did me.......... While they liv'd and writ together, weHad Plays exceeded what we hop'd to see.But they writ few; for youthful Beaumont soonBy death eclipsèd was at his high noon.

The statements especially to be noted in these poems are, first, that Fletcher is present in most of the work published in the earliest folio, that of 1647, Beaumontin but a few plays, Massinger in other few. This information Cockayne, who was but eight years of age when Beaumont died, and seventeen at Fletcher's death, had from Fletcher's chief bosom-friend, and it was probably corroborated by Massinger himself, with whom Cockayne and his family (as we know from other evidence) had long been acquainted. Second, thatalmost every playin the folio was written after Beaumont's death (1616). This information, also, Cockayne had from his own cousin who was a friend and old companion of Fletcher. This cousin, the chief bosom-friend, as I have shown elsewhere, was Charles Cotton, the elder, who died in 1658, not the younger Charles Cotton (the translator of Montaigne),—for he was not born till five years after Fletcher died. And, third, that not only is the title of the folio "Comedies and Tragedies written by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, Gentlemen" a misnomer, but that the bulk of their joint-plays, "the old ones" (not here included) calls for a volume to itself. A very just verdict, indeed,—this of Cockayne,—for (if I may again anticipate conclusions later to be reached) the only indubitable contributions from Beaumont's hand to this folio are hisMaske of the Gentleman of Grayes Inneand a portion ofThe Coxcombe.

The confusion concerning authorship was redoubled by the second folio, which appeared as "Fifty Comedies and Tragedies. Written by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, Gentlemen. Published by the Authors Original Copies (etc.)" in 1679. There are fifty-three plays in this volume; the thirty-five of the first folio, and eighteen previously printed but notbefore gathered together. Beside those in which Beaumont had, or could have had, a hand, the eighteen include five of Fletcher's authorship, five in which he collaborated with others than Beaumont; and one,The Coronation, principally, if not entirely, by Shirley.[142]As in the 1647 folio, the only indication of respective authorship is to be found in occasional dedications, prefaces, prologues and epilogues. But, while in some half-dozen instances these name Fletcher correctly as author, and, in two or three, by implication correctly designate him or Beaumont, in other cases the indication is wrong or misleading. Where "our poets" are vaguely mentioned, or no hint whatever is given, the uncritical reader is led to ascribe the play to the joint composition of Beaumont and Fletcher. The lists of actors prefixed to several of the dramas afford valuable information concerning date and, sometimes, authorship to the student of stage-history; but the credulous would carry away the impression that Beaumont and Fletcher had collaborated equally in about forty of the fifty-three plays contained in the folio of 1679.

The uncertainty regarding the respective shares of the two authors in the production of this large number of dramas and, consequently, regarding the quality of the genius of each, commenced even during the life of Fletcher who survived his friend by nine years, and it has continued in some fashion down to the present time. Writing an elegy "on Master Beaumont, presently after his death,"[143]that is to say, in1616-17, John Earle, a precocious youth of sixteen, at Christ Church, Oxford, is so occupied with lament and praise for "the poet so quickly taken off" that he not only ascribes to him the whole ofPhilasterandThe Maides Tragedy(in both of which it was always known that Fletcher had a share) but omits mention of Fletcher altogether. So far, however, as the estimate of the peculiar genius of Beaumont goes, the judgment of young Earle has rarely been surpassed.

Oh, when I read those excellent things of thine,Such Strength, such sweetnesse, coucht in every line,Such life of Fancy, such high choise of braine,—Nought of the Vulgar mint or borrow'd straine,Such Passion, such expressions meet my eye,Such Wit untainted with obscenity,And these so unaffectedly exprest,But all in a pure flowing language drest,So new, so fresh, so nothing trod upon,And all so borne within thyself, thine owne,I grieve not now that old Menanders veineIs ruin'd, to survive in thee againe.

The succeeding exaltation of his idol above Plautus and Aristophanes, nay even Chaucer, is of a generous extravagance, but the lad lays his finger on the real Beaumont when he calls attention to "those excellent things;" and to the histrionic quality, the high seriousness, the "humours" and the perennial vitality of Beaumont's contribution to dramatic poetry.

A year or so later, and still during Fletcher's lifetime, we find Drummond of Hawthornden confusingin his turn the facts of authorship; for he "reports Jonson as saying that 'Flesher and Beaumont, ten years since, hath writtenThe Faithfull Shipheardesse, a tragicomedie well done,'—whereas both Jonson and Beaumont had already addressed lines to Fletcher in commendation of his pastoral."[144]By 1647, as Miss Hatcher has shown, the confusion had crystallized itself into three distinct opinions, equally false, concerning the respective contribution of the authors to the plays loosely accredited to their partnership. These opinions are represented in the commendatory verses prefixed to the first folio. One was that "they were equal geniuses fused into one by the force of perfect congeniality and not to be distinguished from each other in their work,"—thus put into epigram by Sir George Lisle:

For still your fancies are so wov'n and knit,'T was Francis Fletcher or John Beaumont writ;

and repeated by Sir John Pettus:

How Angels (cloyster'd in our humane Cells)Maintaine their parley, Beaumont-Fletcher tels:Whose strange, unimitable IntercourseTranscends all Rules.

A second, the dominant view in 1647, was that "the plays were to be accredited to Fletcher alone, since Beaumont was not to be taken into serious account in explaining their production." This opinion is expressed by Waller, who, referring not only to the plays of that folio (in only two of which Beaumontappears) but to others likeThe Maides TragedyandThe Scornful Ladiein which, undoubtedly, Beaumont coöperated, says:

Fletcher, to thee wee do not only oweAll these good Playes, but those of others, too; ...No Worthies form'd by any Muse but thine,Could purchase Robes to make themselves so fine;

and by Hills, who writes,—"upon the Ever-to-be-admired Mr. John Fletcher and his Playes,"—

"Fletcher, the King of Poets! such was he,That earn'd all tribute, claim'd all soveraignty."

The third view was—still to follow Miss Hatcher—that "Fletcher was the genius and creator in the work, and Beaumont merely the judicial and regulative force." Cartwright in his two poems of 1647, as I have already pointed out, emphasizes this view:

Though when all Fletcher writ, and the entireMan was indulged unto that sacred fire,His thoughts and his thoughts dresse appeared both suchThat 't was his happy fault to do too much;Who therefore wisely did submit each birthTo knowing Beaumont ere it did come forth;Working againe, until he said 't was fitAnd made him the sobriety of his wit;Though thus he call'd his Judge into his fame,And for that aid allow'd him halfe the name,'T is knowne that sometimes he did stand alone,That both the Spunge and Pencill were his owne;That himselfe judged himselfe, could singly do,And was at last Beaumont and Fletcher too.

A similar view is implied by Dryden, when, in hisEssay of Dramatick Poesie, 1668, he attributes the regularity of their joint-plots to Beaumont's influence; and reports that even "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."

This tradition of Fletcher as creator and Beaumont as critic continued for generations, only occasionally disturbed,[145]in spite of the testimony of Cockayne to Fletcher's sole authorship of most of the plays in the first folio, to the coöperation of Massinger with Fletcher in some, and to the fact that there were enough plays not here included, written conjointly by Beaumont and Fletcher, to warrant the publication of a separate volume, properly ascribed to both. To the mistaken attributions of authorship by Dryden, Rymer, and others, I make reference in my forthcoming Essay onThe Fellows and Followers of Shakespeare, Part Two.[146]The succeeding history of opinion through Langbaine, Collier, Theobald, Sympson and Seward, Chalmers, Brydges,The Biographia Dramatica, Cibber, Malone, Darley, Dyce, and the purely literary critics from Lamb to Swinburne, has been admirably outlined by Miss Hatcher in the first chapter of her dissertation on theDramatic Method of John Fletcher.

With Fleay, in 1874, began the scientific analysisof the problem, based upon metrical tests as derived from the investigation of the individual verse of Fletcher, Massinger, and Beaumont. His method has been elaborated, corrected, and supplemented by additional rhetorical and literary tests, on the part of various critics, some of whom are mentioned below.[147]The more detailed studies in metre and style are by R. Boyle, G. C. Macaulay, and E. H. Oliphant; and the best brief comparative view of their conclusions as regards Beaumont's contribution is to be found in R. M. Alden's edition ofThe Knight of the Burning PestleandA King and No King. To the chronology of the plays serviceable introductions are afforded by Macaulay in the list appended to his chapter in the sixth volume of theCambridge History of English Literature, and by A. H. Thorndike in hisInfluence of Beaumont and Fletcher upon Shakespeare.

Concerning the authorship of the successive scenesin a few of the plays undoubtedly written in partnership by Beaumont and Fletcher a consensus of opinion has practically been reached. Concerning others, especially those in which a third or fourth hand may be traced, the difference of opinion is still bewildering. This divergence is due, perhaps, to the proneness of the critic to emphasize one or more tests out of relation to the rest, or to forget that though individual scenes were undertaken now by one, now by the other of the colleagues, the play as a whole would be usually planned by both, but any individual scene or passage revised by either. The tests of external evidence have of course been applied by all critics, but as to events and dates there is still variety of opinion. Of the internal criteria, those based upon the peculiarities of each partner in respect of versification have been so carefully studied and applied that to repeat the operation seems like threshing very ancient straw; but to accept the winnowings of others, however careful, is unsatisfactory. Tests of rhetorical habit and tectonic preference have also been, in general, attempted; but not, I think, exhaustively. And, though much has been established, and availed of, in analysis, there remains yet something to desire in the application of the more subtle differentiæ yielded by such preliminary methods of investigation,—what these differentiæ teach us concerning the temperamental idiosyncrasies of each of the partners in scope and method of observation, in poetic imagery, in moral and emotional insight and elevation, intellectual outlook, philosophical and religious conviction.

FOOTNOTES:[141]See G. C. Macaulay (Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., VI), and other authorities as in footnote toward end of this chapter.[142]See authorities as in footnote, below.[143]Included "thirty years" after, among the commendatory poems in the folio of 1647; but published earlier withBeaumont's Poems, 1640.[144]Miss O. L. Hatcher,John Fletcher, Chicago, 1905.[145]As by Langbaine,An Account of the English Dramatick Poets(1691), who acknowledges Cockayne as the only conclusive authority upon the subject.[146]R. E. C., Vol. III.[147]F. G. Fleay, inNew Shakespeare Society Transactions, 1874;Shakespeare Manual, 1876;Englische Studien, IX (1866);Chronicle of the English Drama, 1891. R. Boyle, inEngl. Stud., V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XVII, XVIII, XXVI, XXXI (1881-1902), and inN. Shaksp. Soc. Trans., 1886. G. C. Macaulay,Francis Beaumont, 1883; and inCambridge History of English Literature, VI (1910). A. H. Bullen, articleJohn FletcherinDictionary of National Biography, XIX (1889). E. H. Oliphant, inEngl. Stud., XIV, XV, XVI (1890-92). A. H. Thorndike,The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare, 1901; Beaumont and Fletcher'sMaid's Tragedy, etc. (Belles Lettres Series), 1910. R. M. Alden, Beaumont'sKnight of the Burning Pestle, etc. (Belles Lettres Series), 1910. The introductions in theVariorum Edition, 1904, 1905. For a general treatment of the subject see, also, A. W. Ward'sHistory of English Dramatic Literature, II, 155-248 (1875), II, 642-764 (1809), and F. E. Schelling'sElizabethan Drama, II, 184-204, and for bibliography, 526. For general bibliography, Thorndike and Alden in Belles Lettres Series, as above; andCamb. Hist. Eng. Lit., VI, 488-496.

[141]See G. C. Macaulay (Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., VI), and other authorities as in footnote toward end of this chapter.

[142]See authorities as in footnote, below.

[143]Included "thirty years" after, among the commendatory poems in the folio of 1647; but published earlier withBeaumont's Poems, 1640.

[144]Miss O. L. Hatcher,John Fletcher, Chicago, 1905.

[145]As by Langbaine,An Account of the English Dramatick Poets(1691), who acknowledges Cockayne as the only conclusive authority upon the subject.

[146]R. E. C., Vol. III.

[147]F. G. Fleay, inNew Shakespeare Society Transactions, 1874;Shakespeare Manual, 1876;Englische Studien, IX (1866);Chronicle of the English Drama, 1891. R. Boyle, inEngl. Stud., V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XVII, XVIII, XXVI, XXXI (1881-1902), and inN. Shaksp. Soc. Trans., 1886. G. C. Macaulay,Francis Beaumont, 1883; and inCambridge History of English Literature, VI (1910). A. H. Bullen, articleJohn FletcherinDictionary of National Biography, XIX (1889). E. H. Oliphant, inEngl. Stud., XIV, XV, XVI (1890-92). A. H. Thorndike,The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare, 1901; Beaumont and Fletcher'sMaid's Tragedy, etc. (Belles Lettres Series), 1910. R. M. Alden, Beaumont'sKnight of the Burning Pestle, etc. (Belles Lettres Series), 1910. The introductions in theVariorum Edition, 1904, 1905. For a general treatment of the subject see, also, A. W. Ward'sHistory of English Dramatic Literature, II, 155-248 (1875), II, 642-764 (1809), and F. E. Schelling'sElizabethan Drama, II, 184-204, and for bibliography, 526. For general bibliography, Thorndike and Alden in Belles Lettres Series, as above; andCamb. Hist. Eng. Lit., VI, 488-496.

THE DELIMITATION OF THE FIELD

The plays contained in the first folio of Beaumont and Fletcher'sComedies and Tragedies, 1647, areThe Mad Lover,The Spanish Curate,The Little French Lawyer,The Custome of the Countrey,The Noble Gentleman,The Captaine,The Beggers Bush,The Coxcombe,The False One,The Chances,The Loyall Subject,The Lawes of Candy,The Lovers Progresse,The Island Princesse,The Humorous Lieutenant,The Nice Valour,The Maide in the Mill,The Prophetesse,The Tragedy of Bonduca,The Sea Voyage,The Double Marriage,The Pilgrim,The Knight of Malta,The Womans PrizeorThe Tamer Tamed,Loves Cure,The Honest Mans Fortune,The Queene of Corinth,Women Pleas'd,A Wife for a Moneth,Wit at Severall Weapons,The Tragedy of Valentinian,The Faire Maide of the Inne,Loves Pilgrimage,The Maske of the Gentlemen of Grayes Inne, and the Inner Temple, at the Marriage of the Prince and Princesse Palatine of Rhenewritten by Francis Beaumont, Gentleman,Foure Playes(orMoralle Representations)in One.

Of these thirty-five, which purport to be printed from "the authours originall copies," only one, as I have already said,The Maske, had been published before.

The second folio, entitledFifty Comedies and Tragedies, 1679, contains, beside those above mentioned, eighteen others, one of which,The Wild-Goose Chase, had been published separately and in folio, 1652. The remaining seventeen said to be "published from the Authors' Original Copies," are printed from the quartos. They areThe Maides Tragedy,Philaster,A King and No King,The Scornful Ladie,The Elder Brother,Wit Without Money,The Faithfull Shepheardesse,Rule a Wife and Have a Wife,Monsieur Thomas,Rollo,The Knight of the Burning Pestle,The Night-Walker,The Coronation,Cupids Revenge,The Two Noble Kinsmen,Thierry and Theodoret, andThe Woman-Hater.

In addition to these fifty-three plays, one,The Faithful Friends, entered on the Stationers' Registers in 1660, as by Beaumont and Fletcher, was held in manuscript until 1812, when it was purchased by Weber from "Mr. John Smith of Furnival's Inn into whose possession it came from Mr. Theobald, nephew to the editor of Shakespeare," and published.

According to the broadest possible sweep of modern opinion, the presence of Beaumont cannot by anytour de forcebe conjectured in more than twenty-three of the fifty-four productions listed above. The twenty-three are (exclusive ofThe Maske)The Woman-Hater,The Knight of the Burning Pestle,Cupids Revenge,The Scornful Ladie,The Maides Tragedy,A King and No King,Philaster,Foure Playes in One,Loves Cure,The Coxcombe,The Captaine,Thierry and Theodoret,The Faithful Friends,Wit at Severall Weapons,Beggers Bush,Loves Pilgrimage,The Knight of Malta,The Lawes of Candy,The Nice Valour,The Noble Gentleman,The Faire Maide of the Inne,Bonduca, andThe Honest Mans Fortune. With regard to the last twelve of these plays beginning withThierry and Theodoretthere is no convincing proof that more than the first four were written before February 1613, when after preparing theMaskefor the Lady Elizabeth's marriage to the Elector Palatine, Beaumont seems (except for his share ofThe Scornful Ladiewhich I date about 1614) to have withdrawn from dramatic activity,—perhaps because of his own marriage about that time and withdrawal to the country, or because of failing health; and there is no generally accepted historical or textual evidence that Beaumont had any hand even in these four. Of the eight remaining at the end of the list, four may be dated before Beaumont's death in 1616:The Honest Mans Fortune, which is said on manuscript evidence to have been played in the year 1613, but probably later than August 5;[148]Bonduca, which Oliphant asserts is an alteration by Fletcher of an old drama of Beaumont's, but which other authorities assign to Fletcher alone; and, on slighter evidence,Loves Pilgrimage, andThe Nice Valour. The balance of proof with regard to the other four,The Knight of Malta,The Lawes of Candy,The Noble Gentleman, andThe Faire Maide of the Inne, is altogether in favour of their composition after Beaumont's death.

In each of these twelve plays, however, beginning withThierryand ending withThe Honest Mans Fortune,an occasional expert thinks that he finds a speech or a scene in Beaumont's style, and concludes that the play in its present form is a revision of some early effort in which that dramatist had a hand. But where one critic surmises Beaumont, another detects Beaumont's imitators; and where one conjectures Fletcher and Beaumont conjoined, half a dozen assert Fletcher, assisted, or revised by anywhere from one to four contemporaries,—Field or Daborne or Massinger, Middleton or Rowley, or First and Second Unknown. I have examined these plays and the evidence, as carefully as I have those which have more claim to consideration among the Beaumont possibilities, and have applied to them all the tests which I shall presently describe; and have come to the conclusion that Beaumont had nothing to do with any of the twelve.

There remain, then, of the twenty-three plays enumerated above as Beaumont-Fletcher possibilities, only eleven of which I can, on the basis of external or internal evidence, or both, safely say that they were composed before Beaumont ceased writing for the stage, and that he had, or may have had, a hand in writing some of them. These are, in the order of their first appearance in print:The Woman-Hater, published without name of author in 1607;The Knight of the Burning Pestle, also anonymous, published in 1613;Cupids Revenge, published as Fletcher's in 1615;The Scornful Ladie, published in 1616, as Beaumont and Fletcher's, just after the death of the former;The Maides Tragedy, published, without names of authors, in 1619;A King and No King, published as Beaumont and Fletcher's in 1619;Philaster, published as Beaumontand Fletcher's in 1620; andFoure Playes in One,Loves Cure,The Coxcombe, andThe Captaine, first published in the 1647 folio, without ascription of authorship on the title-page, but as of the "Comedies and Tragedies written by Beaumont and Fletcher," in general. In the case ofLoves Curethe Epilogue mentions "our Author"; the Prologue, spoken "at the reviving of this play," attributes it to Beaumont and Fletcher. As forThe Coxcombe, the Prologue for a revival speaks of "the makers that confest it for their own."

It is worthy of notice that three only of these eleven possible "Beaumont-Fletcher" plays were printed during Beaumont's lifetime,—The Woman-Hater,The Knight of the Burning PestleandCupids Revenge, and that on none of them does Beaumont's name appear as author. The last indeed was ascribed, wrongly, as I shall later show, to Fletcher alone. It should also be noted that four other of the plays, beginning withThe Scornful Ladieand ending withPhilaster, were published before the death of Fletcher in 1625; and that while three of them have title-page ascriptions to both authors, one,The Maides Tragedy, is anonymous.

To these eleven plays as a residuum I have given the preference in the application of tests deemed most likely to reveal the relative contribution and genius of the authors in partnership. Beside the seven published as stated above during Fletcher's life, two others appeared which I do not include in this residuum,—The Faithfull ShepheardesseandThierry and Theodoret. The former, printed between December22, 1608 and July 20, 1609, is of Fletcher's sole authorship, and will be employed as one of the clues to his early characteristics. The latter, attributed by some critics to both authors was published without ascription of authorship in a quarto of 1621. It does not appear in the folio of 1647, but was printed in second quarto as "by John Fletcher" in 1648, and again as "by F. Beaumont and J. Fletcher" in 1649; and was finally gathered up with theComedies and Tragedieswhich compose the folio of 1679. Oliphant and Thorndike are of opinion that the play is a revision by Massinger of an original by Beaumont and Fletcher, but I cannot discover in the text evidence sufficient to warrant its inclusion in the list of plays worthy to be investigated as the possible product of the partnership.

The eleven Beaumont-Fletcher plays to which the criteria of internal evidence may be applied with some assurance of success, comprise in their number, fortunately for us, three of which we are informed by external evidence,—the contemporary testimony of John Earle, dated 1616-1617,—that Beaumont was concerned in their composition. These three,Philaster,The Maides Tragedy, andA King and No King, are a positive residuum to which as a model of the joint-work of our authors we may first, in the effort to discriminate their respective functions when working in partnership, apply the tests of style derived from a study of the plays and poems which each wrote alone.

With this delimitation of the field of inquiry, we are now ready for the consideration of the criteria by which the presence of either author may be detected. The criteria are primarily of versification; then, successivelyand cumulatively, of diction and mental habit. Ultimately, and by induction, they are of dramatic technique and creative genius.

FOOTNOTES:[148]See Fleay,Chron. Eng. Dram., I, 195; and W. W. Greg,Henslowe Papers, 90.

[148]See Fleay,Chron. Eng. Dram., I, 195; and W. W. Greg,Henslowe Papers, 90.

THE VERSIFICATION OF FLETCHER AND OF BEAUMONT

I. In Plays Individually Composed.

The studies of the most experienced critics into the peculiarities of Fletcher's blank verse as displayed in productions of the popular dramatic kind, indubitably written by him alone,[149]such asMonsieur Thomasof the earlier period, ending 1613,The Chances,The Loyall Subject, andThe Humorous Lieutenantof the middle period, ending 1619, andRule a Wife and Have a Wifeof his latest period, indicate that he indulges in an excessive use of double endings, sometimes as many as seventy in every hundred lines, even in triple and quadruple endings; in an abundance of trisyllabic feet; and in a peculiar retention of the old end-stopped line, or final pause,—occasionally in as many as ninety out of a hundred lines. Attention has been directed also to the emphasis which he deliberately places upon the extra syllable of the blank verse, making it a substantive rather than a negligible factor: as in the "brains" and "too" of the following:

Or wander after that they know not whereTo find? or, if found how to enjoy? Are men's brainsMade nowadays of malt, that their affectionsAre never sober, but, like drunken peopleFounder at every new fame? I do believe, too,That men in love are ever drunk, as drunken menAre ever loving,—[150]

and to his fondness for appending words such as "first," "then," "there," "still," "sir," and even "lady" and "gentlemen" to lines which already possess their five feet. It has also been remarked that he makes but infrequent employment of rhyme.

Of this metrical style examples will be found on pages in Chapter XIX, Section 2, below; or on any page of Fletcher'sRule a Wife and Have a Wife, as for instance the following from Act III, Scene 1, 14-23:

Here the first half of v. 14 is also the last of the preceding line; seven out of ten verses have double endings; one has a triple ending. One, v. 21, has a quadruple ending; unless we rearrange by adding "made ready" to v. 20, so as to scan:

Trisyllabic feet occur in nine; final pauses in nine; stress-syllable openings and compensating anapæsts in two; the feminine cæsura (phrasal pause within the foot) in two. The pause in v. 15, after two strong monosyllables of which the first is stressed, produces a jolt, typically Fletcherian.

JOHN EARLE, BISHOP OF WORCESTER AND SALISBURY From the portrait in the National Portrait GalleryJOHN EARLE, BISHOP OF WORCESTER AND SALISBURYFrom the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery

JOHN EARLE, BISHOP OF WORCESTER AND SALISBURYFrom the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery

Now, these peculiarities of versification are not a habit acquired by Fletcher after Beaumont ceased to write with him. They are rife not only in the plays of his middle and later periods, but in those of the earlier period while Beaumont was still at his side. As for instance inMonsieur Thomas, entirely Fletcher's of 1607, or at the latest 1611. The reader may be interested to verify for himself by scanning the following passage from Act IV, 2 at which I open at random: Launcelot is speaking:

But to the silent streets we turn'd our furies:A sleeping watchman here we stole the shooes from,There made a noise, at which he wakes, and follows:The streets are durty, takes a Queen-hithe cold,Hard cheese, and that choaks him o' Munday next:Windows and signs we sent to Erebus;A crew of bawling curs we entertain'd last,When having let the pigs loose in out parishes,O, the brave cry we made as high as Algate!Down comes a Constable, and the Sow his SisterMost traiterously tramples upon Authority:There a whole stand of rug gowns rowted mainly,And the King's peace put to flight, a purblind pig hereRuns me his head into the Admirable Lanthorn,—Out goes the light and all turns to confusion.

No one, once acquainted with this style of blank verse, with its end-stopped lines, double endings, stress-syllable openings, feminine cæsuræ, trisyllabic feet, jolts, and heavy extra syllables, can ever turn it to confusion with the verse of any poet before Browning—certainly not with that of Beaumont.

Our materials for a study of Beaumont's individual characteristics in the composition of dramatic blank verse appear at the first sight to be very scanty; for the only example of which we have positive external evidence that it was written by Beaumont alone, isThe Maske of the Gentlemen of Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple, and unfortunately some critics have excluded it from consideration because of its exceptionally formal and spectacular character and slight dramatic purpose. Written, however, at the beginning of 1613, when the author's metrical manner was a definitely confirmed habit, it affords, in my opinion, the best as well as the most natural approach to the investigation of Beaumont's versification. The following lines may be regarded as typical:

In these nine verses there are no Fletcherian jolts, no double endings. In only two lines trisyllabic feet occur; in only two, final pauses. There are stress-syllable openings in two, with the compensating anapæsts; feminine cæsuræ, in three (dotted); and a stress-syllable opening for the verse-section after the cæsura occurs in but one, whereas there are at least three such in the passage fromMonsieur Thomas, quoted above.

Nothing could be more pronounced than the difference between the metrical style of Fletcher'sMonsieur ThomasandRule a Wifeand that of Beaumont'sMaske, as illustrated here. Fletcher abounds in double endings, trisyllabic feet, and end-stopped lines, and such conversational or lyrical cadences; Beaumont uses them much more sparingly. But while the difference between the genuinely dramatic blank verse of Fletcher and that of Beaumont is sometimes as pronounced as this, it would be unscientific to base the criterion upon comparison of a mature, conversationally dramatic, composition of the former with a stiffly rhetorical declamatory composition of the latter. For a more suitable comparison we must set Beaumont'sMaskeside by side with something of Fletcher's written in similar formal and declamatory style,—The Faithfull Shepheardesse, for instance, a youthfulproduction in the pastoral spirit and form. Of this a small part, but sufficient for our purpose, is composed in blank verse; and I have cited in the next chapter with another end in view, the opening soliloquy,—to which the reader may turn. But as exemplifying certain of Fletcher's metrical peculiarities, in a style of verse suitable to be compared with Beaumont's inThe Maske, the following lines from Act I, 1, are perhaps even more distinctive. "What greatness," says the Shepherdesse,—

What greatness, ¦ or what private hidden power,^Is | there in me, | to draw submissionFrom this rude man and beast? Sure I am mortal,105The Daughter of a Shepherd; ¦ he was mortal,And she that bore me mortal: ¦ prick my hand,And it will bleed; a Feaver shakes me, andThe self-same wind that makes the young Lambs shrinkMakes me | a-cold; | my fear says I am mortal.110^Yet have I heard | (my Mother told it me,And now I do believe it), ¦ if I keepMy Virgin Flower uncropt, pure, chaste, and fair,No Goblin, ¦ Wood-god, Fairy, Elf, or Fiend,^Sa|tyr, or oth|er power that haunts the Groves,115Shall hurt my body, ¦ or by vain illusion^Draw | me to wan|der ¦ after idle fires.

Makes me | a-cold; | my fear says I am mortal.110^Yet have I heard | (my Mother told it me,And now I do believe it), ¦ if I keepMy Virgin Flower uncropt, pure, chaste, and fair,No Goblin, ¦ Wood-god, Fairy, Elf, or Fiend,^Sa|tyr, or oth|er power that haunts the Groves,115Shall hurt my body, ¦ or by vain illusion^Draw | me to wan|der ¦ after idle fires.

We have here, in fifteen lines, four double endings, nine final pauses (end-stopped verses), four stress-syllable openings with compensating anapæsts, and seven feminine cæsuræ. In every way this sample even of Fletcher's more formal style displays, in its salient characteristics, a much closer resemblance inkind to the sample of his later blank verse quoted fromRule a Wife, above, than to that quoted from Beaumont'sMaske.

When we pass from samples to larger sections, and compare percentages in the one hundred and thirty-one blank verses ofThe Maskeand the first one hundred and sixty-three ofThe Shepheardesse, we find that in respect of final pauses there is no great difference. There are, in the former, more than is usual with Beaumont—sixty per cent; in the latter, less than is usual with Fletcher—fifty per cent. But in other respects Beaumont'sMaskereveals peculiarities of verse altogether different from those of Fletcher, even when he is writing in the declamatory pastoral vein. In the one hundred and thirty-one lines of theMaskewe find but one double ending; whereas in the first one hundred and sixty-three blank verses ofThe Shepheardessewe count as many as fourteen. In these productions the proportion of feminine cæsuræ is practically uniform—about forty per cent. But when we come to examine the more subtle movement of the rhythm, we find that inThe Maskenot more than ten per cent of the lines open with the stress-syllable, while in the blank verse of theShepheardessefully thirty-five out of every hundred lines have that opening and, consequently, impart the lyrical cadence which pervades much of Fletcher's metrical composition. In the matter of anapæstic substitutions, and of stress-syllable openings for the verse-section after the cæsura, Beaumont is similarly inelastic; while the Fletcher of theShepheardessedisplays a marvellous freedom. It follows that in theMaskeweencounter but rarely the rhetorical pause, within the verse, compensating for an absent thesis or arsis; while in the pastoral verse of Fletcher we find frequent instances of this delicate dramatic as well as metrical device, and an occasional jolting cæsura.

We are not limited, however, to the material afforded by theMaskein our attempt to discover Beaumont's metrical characteristics when writing alone.The Woman-Hater, included among the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher in the folio of 1679, and ascribed to both on the title-page of a quarto of 1649, is assigned by the Prologue of the first quarto, 1607, to a single author—"he that made this play." And, though there is no attribution of authorship on the title-page of the 1607 quarto, we know from the application of verse-tests and tests of diction that, in all but three scenes which have evidently been revised,[151]the author was certainly not Fletcher. An examination of the inner structure of the verse ofThe Woman-Hater, reveals, except in those scenes, precisely the peculiarities that distinguish Beaumont'sMaske: the same infrequency of stress-syllable openings, and of anapæstic substitutions and of suppressed syllables in metrical scheme. In respect of the more evident device of the run-on lineThe Woman-Haterreaches a percentage twice as high as that employed in Fletcher's unassisted popular dramas; and in respect of the double ending it has a percentage only one-quarter as high. We notice also in this play a much more frequent employment of rhyme than in any ofFletcher's stage plays, and a much larger proportion of prose both for dialogue and soliloquy.

We should have further basis for conclusion concerning Beaumont's metrical style in independent composition, if we could accept the general assumption that he was the author of theInductionto theFoure Playes in One, and of the first two plays,The Triumph of HonourandThe Triumph of Love. But for reasons, later to be stated, I agree with Oliphant that theInductionandHonourare not by Beaumont; and I hold that he can not be traced with certainty even in the two or three scenes ofLovethat seem to be marked by some of his characteristics. The hand of a third writer, Field, is manifest in the non-Fletcherian plays of the series.

But though we can not draw for our purpose upon other plays as his unassisted work, we may derive help from the consideration of two at least of Beaumont's poems,—poems that have something of a dramatic flavour. Though they are in rhyming couplets, they display many of the characteristics of the author's blank verse. In theLetter to Ben Jonson, which is conversational, I count of run-on lines, thirty-eight in eighty, almost fifty per cent, as compared with Fletcher's sometimes ten or twenty per cent, in spite of the superior elasticity of blank verse; and of stress-syllable openings in the same letter twenty-four per cent as compared with the thirty-five per cent of Fletcher's more highly cadenced rhythm in theShepheardesse. In Beaumont'sElegy on the Countess of Rutland, the last forty-four lines afford a fine example of dramatic fervour—the indictment of the physicians.Here the run-on lines again abound, almost fifty per cent; while the stress-syllable openings are but sixteen per cent—much lower than one may find in many rhymed portions of theShepheardesse. With regard to all other tests except that of double ending (which does not apply in this kind of heroic couplet), we find that these poems of Beaumont are of a metrical style distinguished by the same characteristics as his blank verse.[152]

2. In Certain Joint-Plays.

If we turn now to a second class of material available,—the three plays indubitably produced in partnership,—and eliminate the portions written in the metrical style of Fletcher, as already ascertained, we may safely attribute the remainder to the junior member of the firm; and so arrive at a final determination of his manner in verse composition.

The three plays, as I have said before, arePhilaster,The Maides TragedyandA King and No King. A passage, which in the opinion of nearly all critics[153]is by all tests distinctively Fletcherian, may be cited from the first of these as an example of that which we eliminate when we look for Beaumont. It is from the beginning of Act V, 4, where the Captain enters:

Back to Index Next