No More Learning



## p. 104 (#122) ############################################

104
Thomas Heywood
2
civic enthusiasm of which reference has already been made, we
come, in conclusion, to two plays in which he collaborated with
other writers. Of these, Fortune by Land and Sea was not
printed till 1655, as the joint production of Thomas Heywood
and William Rowley (both of whose names were mis-spelt on the
title-page); but it belongs to a far earlier date_possibly 1607—9,
when both dramatists were included in queen Anne's company?
The strong hand of William Rowley may be discernible in this
piece, which has a firmer texture than is usual with his fellow
playwright, and it may or may not) have been that hand
which gave dramatic form to the adventures and sentiments
of the pirates Clinton and Walton (the purser), apparently long-
lived favourites of the public—for pirates and patriots were not
so very far apart in that spacious age. In substance, however,
it is a domestic drama in Heywood's most characteristic manner,
while it bears witness once more to his love of the sea. The
admirable opening-a tavern brawl, the bloody ending of which
forms the starting point of the action resembles that of Heywood's
masterpiece; the troubles of Old Forrest are treated with gentle
pathos ; and the very humours of the clown are tinged with the
kindliness which can relieve even tomfoolery,
The late Lancashire Witches was printed in 1634 as the joint
work of Thomas Heywood and Richard Brome. But the story of
the play was based, in part, upon an account, published by T. Potts
in 1613, of the doings of certain Lancashire women, of whom twelve
had suffered death as witches in the previous year, and it is
possible that Heywood was the author of a play much earlier than
that put on the stage in 1634. In this year, another discovery' of
witches had attracted public attention, and the principal witness
in this case (who appears in the play as the boy) had been brought
up to London. This ingenuous creature afterwards confessed that
his evidence before the Lancashire magistrates had been suborned,
and the accused, unlike their unfortunate predecessors in 1612,
were pardoned. But the authors of The late Lancashire Witches
cannot be acquitted on the charge that they had, pendente lite,
done their utmost to intensify public feeling against 'witches'-
whether or not their play was furbished up from an earlier piece
1 Cf. Fleay, vol. 1, p. 294; where see, also, as to the verse account of the two pirates,
first entered in the Stationers' register in 1586. The form of the play, in which there is
a great deal of rime, favours the assumption of an early date.
? Barron Field, in his edition of the play, rightly points out that the degradation of
the disinherited eldest son and his wife to the position of farm labourers may not
have seemed unnatural to an Elizabethan audience.


## p. 105 (#123) ############################################

!
13
E
This
His Qualities as a Dramatist
105
written by one of them! This makes it difficult to peruse with
patience the reproduction in this drama of the superstitious fictions
which did twelve unhappy women to death-the 'ridings' through
the air and the unholy assemblies, together with the mischievous
interference at a wedding feast and other rites. Yet, in this
farrago of half realistic nonsense, it is possible to discern the
elements of effective domestic drama, and the touching scene in
which Master Generous seeks to redeem his misguided wife from
her evil practices breathes a spirit akin to that which animates
some of the finest passages in Heywood's dramatic work.
The above, necessarily compendious, review of the extant
writings of this dramatist may have gone some way to make good
the conclusion that the flexibility of his talent as well as his
indefatigable industry enabled him to hold his own in dramatic
species so diverse as the chronicle history, the romantic drama
and the comedy of manners. In addition, he achieved at least one
masterpiece in domestic drama—a species in which his sincerity
and directness, together with a pathetic power springing from a
manly, candid and generous nature, found their most congenial
expression; while several other of his plays may, at least in part,
be regarded as having contributed to this artistic growth. While
he possessed the gift of genuine pathos, he was incapable of
lending words to passion; his satiric gift was small, and he rarely
sought to exercise it, his wit and humour moving more or less
within conventional bounds, though his clowns are by no means
invariably tedious. He was not strong in the art of construction,
and the total effect of several of his plays suffers from the by-plots
with which he thought it incumbent on him to eke out their
main action; but he was singularly skilful both in devising
most effective dramatic situations, and in providing for his plays
a background-usually disclosed in an excellent opening—which
gave to them individuality and variety. He was devoid of any
lyric vein, though the popular sympathies by which he was stirred
might have seemed likely to move him to song—for patriotism,
both national and civic, was second nature to him. Few features
are more striking in him than the love of learning which he
had brought with him from Cambridge and which he nourished by
lifelong application. But from drying up into a pedant he was
-
13
See the present writer's account of the play in English Dramatic Literature, vol. 11,
p. 575; and cf. the late James Crossley's Introduction to Potts's Discoverie of Witches,
etc. (Chetham Society's Publications, vol. vi, 1845), where will be found much learning
on the subject.


## p. 106 (#124) ############################################

106
Thomas Heywood
preserved by the manysidedness of his intellectual interests, and
by the freshness of spirit that was in him.
A ‘prose Shakespeare' Heywood deserves to be called only
in so far as he, too, could, on occasion, probe the depths of
human nature, touching with the wand of poetic imagination what
seemed to him of interest in the homely figures and everyday
experiences of contemporary life. When he imitated Shakespeare,
as in passages of his plays he did more or less unconsciously? ,
this was only in the way of business. He was not the man to
dream of donning the armour of Achilles, any more than to aspire
to an enduring fame—though of such as is his due meed he is
not likely to be deprived.
* One or two of these passages may be noted here:
A horse! a horse! (Part II of If you know not me, etc. )
What seek ye from the throne ?
That in which Kings
Resemble most the Gods: Justice. (A Challenge for Beautie, act v. )
And hand to hand in single opposition. (Fortune by Land and Sea, act 11. )


## p. 107 (#125) ############################################

CHAPTER V
BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER
The collection of plays with which the names of Beaumont
and Fletcher are traditionally associated constitutes the most
important body of dramatic work which was produced by the
successors of the Elizabethans, that is to say, by those dramatists
whose activity belonged wholly to the Stewart period. With this
new generation, a new fashion had come in. The genuinely
national interest in the drama which especially characterised the
last fifteen years of Elizabeth had, to a great extent, passed
away, and the taste of the court had become gradually more and
more the prevailing influence. This tendency had outwardly ex-
pressed itself, nearly at the beginning of the reign of James I, in
the fact that all the companies of actors in London then came to
be directly under the patronage of the royal family, while the pro-
duction of plays was, at the same time, subjected to the control
of the master of the revels; and, as the older generation of
dramatists disappeared, the new fashion showed itself more
and more in the character of the plays produced. Ben Jonson's
inductions are full of protests against the taste of the day in
drama, and especially against the growing tyranny in the matter
of criticism exercised by gallants who occupied seats on the
stage and assumed the right to damn a play at their pleasure;
but he found himself helpless to modify the prevailing fashions.
The court of James I had lost the chivalrous aspirations of the earlier
time, and the moral corruption which had been held in check, at
least to some extent, by noble ideals, had become alarmingly
prominent in the life of the upper classes of society. Shallowness
and frivolity characterised the manners of the court, even where
these were not tinged with gross vices, and a certain superficial
brilliancy had taken the place of more estimable qualities. Such
a society was naturally disinclined to serious reflection upon the


## p. 108 (#126) ############################################

108
Beaumont and Fletcher
issues of human life, and Shakespearean tragedy was both too
wide and too deep for its sympathies. It was, perhaps, a per-
ception of this change of conditions, rather than any marked
change in his own genius or temperament, that led Shakespeare
to abandon tragedy during the latest years of his connection with
the stage, and to entertain his public with dramatic romances.
However this may be, a definite preference was manifested, in the
period which was then beginning, for that hybrid form of drama
which became specially characteristic of the English stage-
tragicomedy; in which serious matters are dealt with, but a tragic
solution is avoided. Closely connected with this want of moral
earnestness was the demand for theatrical entertainments which did
not make any serious appeal to the intellect; and, hence, on the one
hand, the exaggerated love of pageantry, which was gratified by
the magnificence of the masques presented at court, and, on the
other, the growing preference, even of the better portion of the
audiences at the playhouses, for plots full of interesting events and
surprising turns of fortune, rather than such as were developed
naturally from situations and characters: the result being a
comparative neglect of character interest, and a disregard for
the principle of artistic unity.
But, apart from the general relaxation of moral and intellectual
fibre which was indicated in these tendencies, there were far more
serious evidences of moral decadence. The manners of society
had not yet sunk to the prosaic level of profligacy which cha-
racterised the period of the Restoration, and the feeling for poetry
and romance had not altogether departed; but the court standard
of morals with regard to the relations of men and women was
decidedly low, and false notions of loyalty and honour, to a great
extent, had established themselves in the higher classes of society.
In these respects, there is no reason to doubt that the drama of
the period reflected the prevailing fashions. Themes of love and
honour are those in which an artificial society of this kind is
chiefly interested, and it is these which it desires to see dealt with
upon the stage. The moral standard of the drama is apt to be the
same as that of the community for which it is composed; and
where false ideals of conduct in regard to chastity and honour
prevail in a society, we may reasonably expect to find them
reflected in the drama which is patronised by it.
The tastes of the society which had its centre in the court
of James I were, in fact, very faithfully provided for in the series
of dramas which have come down to us under the names of


## p. 109 (#127) ############################################

Contemporary Estimate
109
Beaumont and Fletcher; and that these should have been better
liked upon the stage than those of Shakespeare ought not to be
matter for surprise. In the former, poetry and romance were found
in combination with the code of manners and the standard of morals
which prevailed among gentlemen; the spectator was entertained
by a lively succession of events, contrived with consummate stage-
craft to produce the most interesting situations and the most
pleasurable surprises, and by a considerable variety of characters,
for the most part well sustained, though very deficient in depth
and truth to nature when compared with Shakespeare's; while,
at the same time, the language was a model of lucidity and purity,
altogether free both from tasteless conceits and from the obscurity
to which a style either highly figurative or overloaded with
thought is liable. Moreover, in the comedies, the audience was
interested and delighted by a new style of wit in conversation,
which was recognised as just that kind of brilliancy which every
courtier would wish to display, and beside which the old Eliza-
beth way' seemed clumsy and oldfashioned.
Shakespeare to thee was dull, whose best wit lies
the ladies' questions and the fools' replies,
Old-fashion'd wit, which walk'd from town to town
In trunk-hose, which our fathers call'd the clown.
So William Cartwright, a fellow poet and dramatist, addressed
Fletcher; and Dryden was only repeating a commonplace when
he said, comparing Beaumont and Fletcher with Shakespeare, that
'they understood and imitated the conversation of gentlemen much
better, whose wild debaucheries and quickness of wit in repartees
no poet can ever paint as they have done. ' The morality of their
plays, bad as it may seem to us in some cases, was by no means
looked upon as a just ground of complaint by their contemporaries.
On the contrary, the moral improvement to be gained from them
is one of the points insisted upon by their panegyrists:
Vices which were
Manners abroad, did pass corrected there;
They who possessed a box and half-crown spent
To learn obsceneness, returned innocent.
We find here, fully developed for the first time, a species of stage
entertainment which is rather an acted romance than a drama
in the strict sense of the word; without the intensity of tragedy,
but with more emotional interest and a more poetical style of
expression than is proper to comedy. The poetical comedy of
Shakespeare's middle period had been, to some extent, of this
d
D
1


## p. 110 (#128) ############################################

IIO
Beaumont and Fletcher
kind; and the species was exemplified further in the work of his
latest period, in Cymbeline, Pericles, The Tempest and The
Winter's Tale. Even by Shakespeare, the line between tragedy
and comedy, in some instances, is doubtfully drawn, and recon-
ciliations are huddled up when a tragic solution seems rather to
be required-as, for example, in Measure for Measure and in
Cymbeline; and still more is this the case with Beaumont and
Fletcher. The name 'tragicomedy' is applied usually to about a
third of the whole number of their plays, and is equally applicable
to a good many more, which are commonly called tragedies or
comedies. In fact, the great majority of the plays in this col-
lection are of the intermediate class to which the term 'dramatic
romance' is properly applicable, whether they have or have not
a tragic catastrophe; and it was this kind of drama that was
especially agreeable to the taste of the more aristocratic playgoer.
In dramas of this type we may say that variety of incident
was aimed at rather than unity of design, diffuseness took the
place of concentration, amorous passion became almost the only
dramatic motive and the conflict of emotions was of less importance
than the romantic interest of situation. The impression made upon
the mind of the reader of this large collection of plays is one of
astonishment at the richness and variety of dramatic invention
which they display; but it is seldom that he is able to commend
one of these dramas without very serious reserves, either moral
or artistic. The merit belongs usually to particular scenes in
a drama rather than to the drama as a whole; and, in cases where
there is no ground for criticising the conduct of the design, it is
often found that the plot deals with morbid or doubtful situations.
In spite, however, of these general characteristics, it is not the
case that the collection which passes under the names of Beaumont
and Fletcher is strictly homogeneous, and it is certain that some
of the differences which we observe between one portion of it
and another arise from diversity of authorship. An attempt,
therefore, must be made to distinguish the personalities of the
principal contributors.
Of Beaumont and Fletcher as individuals, we know little, ex-
cept what we can gather from their works. John Fletcher, the elder
of the two, born in 1579, was the son of a clergyman, Richard
Fletcher, then minister of Rye in Sussex, and afterwards succes-
sively dean of Peterborough, and bishop of Bristol, Worcester and
London. Thisícomely and courtly prelate,' who had the misfortune to
fall out of favour with queen Elizabeth because of a second marriage,


## p. 111 (#129) ############################################

1
Biography
III
died in 1596, leaving a large family very poorly provided for. The
poets Giles and Phineas Fletcher were sons of his younger brother,
first cousins of the dramatist. John Fletcher was educated at Benet
(Corpus Christi) college, Cambridge, and probably began rather
early to write for the stage. At what time his literary association
with Beaumont began must remain uncertain. Dryden tells us that
Philaster was the first play that brought them into esteem, 'for
before that they had written two or three very unsuccessfully. ' Each
may have written plays separately in this early period; but, when
their connection was formed, it was of a more intimate and permanent
character than any other of those partnerships which were frequent
in the history of the Jacobean drama--being based upon personal
friendship rather than upon any merely occasional purpose. They
lived together 'on the Bankside, not far from the Play-house,'
and are reported to have carried their friendship so far as to have
had all things in common. It is, perhaps, worthy of note that
there are several passages in Fletcher's later work which seem to
be reminiscences of such a friendship as this. After Beaumont
left off writing for the stage, Fletcher worked either by himself
or in conjunction with other dramatists, and particularly with
Massinger. He died, of the plague, in 1625, and was buried in
St Saviour's, his parish church. The testimony of Fletcher's
contemporaries is to the effect that he was very sparkling and
brilliant, as good as a comedy in himself, and that his attitude
towards the public was distinguished both by modesty and by
self-respect. Jonson loved him and 'was proud to call him son,'
distinguishing him as one of the few living writers 'besides him-
self' who could make a masque! His ceaseless activity in the
production of plays, and his readiness to cooperate with various
dramatists in supplying the needs of the stage, suggest the
idea that he was dependent for his livelihood upon the theatre;
but both he and Beaumont were gentlemen by position, and had
probably seen more of fashionable society than most of their
fellow dramatists.
Francis Beaumont was the youngest son of Sir Francis Beau-
mont of Grace-dieu in Leicestershire, one of the justices of the
common pleas, and brother of John Beaumont, author of
Bosworth Field. He was born probably in 1585, was educated
at Broadgates hall (afterwards Pembroke college), Oxford, and
1 There are no independent masques attributed to Fletcher, but several are to be
found in the plays to which he contribated, as The Maides Tragedy and The
False One.


## p. 112 (#130) ############################################

I I2
Beaumont and Fletcher
>
was entered as a member of the Inner Temple in the year 1600.
A long poem, after the model of Marlowe's Hero and Leander,
entitled Salmacis and Hermaphroditus, which was published
anonymously in 1602, was afterwards attributed to him; but the
evidences of authorship are by no means conclusive. He became
acquainted with Jonson very early, and wrote a copy of verses in
1605, 'To my dear friend Master Ben Jonson, upon his Fox'
(that is, the comedy Volpone), in which he declared that to Jonson
alone the English stage owed the rules of dramatic art. He paid
a similar compliment to two subsequent plays, The Silent Woman
and Catiline; and in all these pieces he expressed a contemptuous
opinion of public taste. On one occasion, while staying in the
country, he wrote to Jonson a poetical epistle, in which the doings
at the Mermaid are alluded to in the well known lines,
What things have we seen
Done at the Mermaid, etc.
and Jonson replied in verses which testify respect as well as
affection. A tradition reported by Dryden tells us that Beaumont
was
80 accurate a judge of plays, that Ben Jonson, while he lived, submitted
all his writings to his censure, and 'tis thought used his judgement in
correcting, if not contriving, all his plots.
In the freedom of his conversations with Drummond, Jonson let
fall the remark that "Francis Beaumont loved too much himself
and his own verses. ' Fletcher also, as we have seen, was on terms
of friendship with Jonson; and the two young dramatists may
have become acquainted with one another through him. We
shall see, however, that Beaumont produced at least one play,
The Woman Hater, independently of his future partner, and in
this the influence of Jonson is distinctly predominant. The verses
of Beaumont on the stage failure of Fletcher's Faithfull Shep-
heardesse, probably in 1609, again express much contempt of
popular judgment. On the marriage of the princess Elizabeth,
early in 1613, the inns of court prepared masques, to be presented
at Whitehall, and Beaumont supplied that which was provided by
the Inner Temple and Gray's inn. This masque is dedicated to
Sir Francis Bacon, solicitor general, as one who had 'spared no
time or travel in the setting forth, ordering and furnishing' of it.
Beaumont was himself married, apparently about two years before
his death, to Ursula, daughter of Henry Isley, of Sundridge in Kent;
and from this time his relations with Fletcher must have been less
intimate, and he may then have given up writing for the stage. He
>


## p. 113 (#131) ############################################

Individual Characteristics
113
died in March 1616, a few weeks before Shakespeare, and was
buried in Westminster abbey, in a place not far from the tombs
of Chaucer and Spenser. He wrote several occasional poems,
besides those already mentioned, including elegies on lady Mark-
ham, lady Penelope Clifton (a daughter of Sidney's Stella) and the
countess of Rutland (Sidney's daughter); but none of them rise above
mediocrity, and they are disfigured by examples of false taste, from
which the author's dramatic work is free. Among his intimates
was Drayton, who speaks of the two Beaumonts and of Browne as
his dear companions,
Such as have freely told to me their hearts,
As I have mine to them.
A certain amount of interest was taken by the succeeding gene-
ration in apportioning the qualities of genius displayed in the
Beaumont and Fletcher dramas between these two leading authors
of them. Some, it is true, adopted the convenient, but wholly
uncritical, notion, that Beaumont and Fletcher were so absolutely
alike, that it was a matter of indifference whether they were
regarded as one author or as two, there being a complete 'con-
simility of fancy' between them ; but, in general, we note the
acceptance of the conclusion which Pope has made familiar, naniely,
that Fletcher contributed the wit and Beaumont the judgment,
and that Beaumont's function was to check the overflowings of
Fletcher's genius. It was natural that, as Fletcher ruled the stage
for a long period after his partner's death, the chief positive
merit should be attributed to him by the generation for whose
tastes he had successfully catered, and that to Beaumont, whose
separate personality was little known, and whose genius, in fact,
was more nearly allied than that of his friend to the spirit of the
former age, should be assigned the negative function of criticism.
So far as the claim to superior judgment may be taken to imply
a more truly artistic conception of dramatic art, it is probable
that it should be admitted in favour of Beaumont; but the idea
that his work consisted chiefly of criticism must be rejected.
It is noticeable that, in the only copy of commendatory verse
which claims to date from the time of Beaumont's death, we hear
nothing of his critical activity, but of
those excellent things of thine,
Such strength, such sweetness couch'd in every line,
Such life of fancy, such high choice of brain.
Moreover, the writer of this, John Earle, does not think it necessary
even to mention the name of Fletcher, while attributing Philaster,
E. L. VI.
CH, V.
8


## p. 114 (#132) ############################################

114
Beaumont and Fletcher
The Maides Tragedy and A King and no King to Beaumont
alone. This, no doubt, is the result of a personal partiality; but
we must remember that the verses written later, for the folio of
1647, were, for the most part, equally affected by partiality in the
other direction, and, in general, these later compositions can only
be relied upon as evidence of the vague impressions prevailing in
the public mind in the age which succeeded the death of Fletcher.
The statements of publishers as to the individual or joint
authorship of particular plays are scanty and untrustworthy.
Four only were printed in Beaumont's lifetime-The Woman
Hater, The Faithfull Shepheardesse, The Knight of the Burning
Pestle and Cupid's Revenge—and, of these, two appeared anony-
mously, whiletwo, The Faithfull Shepheardesse and Cupid's Revenge,
were ascribed to Fletcher alone, the latter, no doubt, wrongly,
Five more were printed during the lifetime of Fletcher, The
Scornful Ladie, A King and no King, The Maides Tragedy,
Philaster and Thierry and Theodoret. Of these, The Scornful
Ladie, A King and no King and Philaster were ascribed to
Beaumont and Fletcher, the other two being anonymous; but
there is no probability that these publications were, in any instance,
made with Fletcher's authority, and the publisher of A King
and no King in 1619 was, apparently, unaware that one of the
authors to whom it was ascribed was dead. Most of the above-
mentioned dramas were reprinted, and a few more were added to
the list of published plays, before the death of Massinger, who,
as we shall see, contributed largely to the Beaumont and Fletcher
collection; and it has been argued that the mention of Beaumont
upon the title-page of any quarto published before 1639 proves,
at least, that the play was originally produced before Beaumont's
death. But it is evident that this kind of reasoning is very unsafe.
In 1647, five years after the closing of the theatres, Humphrey
Moseley, the bookseller, brought out a folio which professed to con-
tain all the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher that had not hitherto
been printed, with the exception of one, of which the copy had been
mislaid. Moseley declared that it had been his intention to print
Fletcher's works by themselves, but he had finally decided not to
separate him from Beaumont. It is probable that he could not
have done so if he had desired; but the publication of this folio
produced a protest in verse (which might much better have been
in prose) from Sir Aston Cockaine, against the general ascription
to Beaumont of plays in which, for the most part, he had no
share; and, since nearly all the dramas in the composition of which
a


## p. 115 (#133) ############################################

Individual Characteristics
115
Beaumont was concerned had already been printed and were,
consequently, excluded from this edition, it cannot be denied that
the complaint was well founded. He added that his old friend
Massinger had contributed to some of the newly printed plays,
but that, for the most part, they were 'sole issues of sweet
Fletcher's brain. ' The same complaint is contained in an epistle
to his cousin Charles Cotton, who, as being 'Fletcher's chief bosom
friend,' ought to have seen that justice was done to him by the
printers. The main importance that these protests have for us
consists in the incidental statement about Massinger, whose name
had not hitherto been publicly mentioned in connection with the
plays of Beaumont and Fletcher; and one of the most interesting
and trustworthy results of modern criticism has been to establish,
on metrical and other grounds, the extent to which this dramatist
collaborated with Fletcher. With regard to Beaumont, our con-
clusions are, in detail, more uncertain; and possibly, in some cases,
plays in which he had a share have been subsequently altered
or rewritten, so as partly to obliterate the traces of his hand.
A good deal of labour and ingenuity has been expended in the
endeavour to solve, by critical methods, the very intricate problems
of authorship which present themselves, and it has been found
possible to arrive at a tolerably clear idea of the main character-
istics of Beaumont's work as distinguished from that of his
partner? In certain particular cases, however, there remains
much uncertainty, and opinions of very various kinds have been
maintained with a confidence of assertion which is by no means
justified by the available evidence. When a critic, with no ex-
ternal evidence of authorship before him, concludes that a certain
play was originally written by Beaumont, afterwards revised by
Fletcher and finally re-written by Middleton, he is evidently
dealing in mere guesswork. On the other hand, these investi-
gations have, undoubtedly, been accompanied by a more accurate
and systematic study than had previously been made of the indi-
vidual marks of style by which the dramatists of the period are
distinguished, and have, doubtless, helped towards a clearer per-
ception of the true value of metrical tests, as well as of the
dangers of a too-mechanical application of them.
The general result of criticism seems to be as follows. It is
probable that, of the fifty-two plays which have commonly passed
* The progress made in recent times may be estimated partly by the remark of
Hallam in 1843, that no oritic has perceived any difference of style between the two
dramatists (Literature of Europe, vol. II, p. 98).
842


## p. 116 (#134) ############################################

116
Beaumont and Fletcher
>
a
under the joint names, at least one belongs to Beaumont alone, and
that in some eight or nine others he cooperated with Fletcher,
taking, usually, the leading part in the combination; that Fletcher
was the sole author of about fifteen plays, and that there are
some two-and-twenty, formerly attributed to the pair conjointly,
in which we find Fletcher's work combined with that of other
authors than Beaumont, besides five or six in which, apparently,
neither Fletcher nor Beaumont had any appreciable share. To
the general total may be added Henry VIII, by Shakespeare and
Fletcher, which is commonly regarded as Shakespeare's; A Very
Woman, which passes under the name of Massinger, but in which
Fletcher, probably, had a share; and Sir John van Olden Barna-
velt, by Fletcher and Massinger, which remained unprinted till
quite recently. Among the dramatists with whom Fletcher worked
after the retirement of Beaumont, by far the most important place
is taken by Massinger, who has a considerable share in at least
sixteen plays, and who in justice ought to have been mentioned
upon the title-page of the collection. There is evidence, also,
-
of the occasional cooperation of Fletcher with Jonson, Field,
Tourneur, W. Rowley and, perhaps, Daborne.
It is evident that any investigation which may be made of
the separate styles of Beaumont and Fletcher must, in the first
instance, be based upon those plays which may reasonably be attri-
buted to Fletcher alone, and these, in fact, will be found to supply
a tolerably satisfactory criterion. The metrical style of Fletcher
is more unmistakably marked than that of any other dramatist of
the period. Its most obvious characteristic is the use of redun-
dant syllables in all parts of the line, but especially at the end.
So much is this the practice with him that, out of every three of
his lines, usually two, at least, have double or triple endings, and
even this proportion is often far exceeded. No other writer has
anything like this number of feminine endings: in a play of
2500 lines, while Massinger, who approaches Fletcher most nearly
in this respect, might, possibly, have as many as 1200 double or
triple endings, and Shakespeare, in his latest period, as many as
850, Fletcher would normally have at least 1700, and might not
impossibly have as many as 2000; and his marked preference for
this form of verse is emphasised by the fact that very often the
feminine ending is produced by the addition of some quite
unnecessary word, such as 'sir,' 'lady,' 'too,' ‘now, introduced,
apparently, for this sole purpose. A characteristic feature, also,
of Fletcher's double endings, though not peculiar to him, is that


## p. 117 (#135) ############################################

Style of Fletcher
117
the redundant syllable is occasionally a word of some weight, which
cannot be slurred over, e. g.
As many plagues as the corrupted air breeds,
or
Welcome to the court, sweet beauties! Now the court shines.
The use of redundant syllables elsewhere than at the end of the line
is also very frequent, so that the number of syllables in Fletcher's
verse ranges, in comedy at least, from ten to fifteen or more.
These peculiarities of rhythm were deliberately adopted for
dramatic purposes. Fletcher was quite capable of writing blank
verse of the usual type, and in his pastoral drama, The Faithfull
Shepheardesse, we have nearly two hundred lines of blank verse
with not more than ten double endings, and with hardly any
superfluous syllables in other parts of the line. For his ordinary
dramatic work, however, he chose a form which, in his opinion,
was better suited for dramatic expression. The object aimed at
was to make the line more loose and flexible and to gain an effect
of ease and absence of premeditation. No mouthing is possible
in this verse, no rounding off of a description or sentiment with
a period; all is abrupt and almost spasmodic, apparently the out-
come of the moment. The quick and lively action of the later
English stage, with its easy assumption of the ordinary speech of
gentlemen, thus developed a metre which could supply the place of
prose in the lightest interchange of fashionable repartee.
With this freedom in the matter of syllabic measure, Fletcher
combines a singular absence of free movement from verse to verse.
His lines, for the most part, are ‘end-stopped,' that is to say, they
have usually a marked final pause, so that each verse tends to
become an independent unit of expression, and the running-on of
the sentence from line to line is comparatively rare. The free
distribution of pauses in the verse, which is naturally connected
with a periodic structure of sentence, is thus seriously restricted,
and the intention of excluding, so far as possible, the more rhetori-
cal form of expression, and of favouring the use of short sentences
of simple structure, is evident. This, no doubt, conduces to
clearness, and the effect of discontinuity, which is obtained by
coincidence of pause with the end of the loosely constructed line,
helps, perhaps, to suggest a spontaneous development of thoughts
from the circumstances of the moment. But these advantages
are dearly bought by the tiresome monotony which the system
involves, a monotony which is only, to some extent, relieved by
variation of the position of the internal pause and by the frequent


## p. 118 (#136) ############################################

118 Beaumont and Fletcher
use of the so-called 'lyric' caesura. It is by the combination of the
double ending with the stopped line that Fletcher’s verse is
chiefly distinguished from that of Massinger. Jonson's later verse
exhibits, to some extent, the same combination as Fletcher's, and
must, to some extent, have been influenced by it. The informal
character of Fletcher's verse structure enabled him to dispense
entirely with prose in his later work; but it must not be assumed
that he never used it at any period. He seems to have almost
always avoided rime in his ordinary dramatic verse; employing
it occasionally, however, at the end of a scene.
Fletcher's metrical style, generally, is intimately associated with
his endeavour to achieve a more lively and dramatic presentation of
thought. Shakespeare, in his later work, to a great extent dis-
carded the periodic structure of the sentence, and adopted what we
may call the disjointed style, as more dramatic; but his method
was altogether different from that of Fletcher. Instead of strength-
ening the end pause, he, to a great extent, abolished it, and
attained his object by methods which, in the hands of an inferior
writer, would have altogether disorganised the verse. Indeed, a
comparison of Fletcher with Shakespeare generally would tend
chiefly to emphasise the difference of their styles. Shakespeare's
unequalled rapidity of imagination makes him concise even to
obscurity, especially in his later work; he more and more abounds
in metaphor, finding no leisure to do more than indicate his com-
parisons; and this pregnant brevity carries with it extraordinary
force. Fletcher, on the other hand, notwithstanding the rapidity
of action in his dramas, is inclined to move slowly in the expres-
sion of thoughts and feelings. 'He lays line upon line, making up
one after the other, adding image to image so deliberately that
we see where they join. Shakespeare mingles everything, he runs
line into line, embarrasses sentences and metaphors; before one
idea has burst its shell, another is hatched and clamorous for
disclosure But this very quality of Fletcher's style, this
clear presentation of ideas and images in due succession, was
likely to make him the more popular of the two poets upon the
stage, and helps, in some measure, to account for the fact that, in
the latter part of the seventeenth century, two of ‘Beaumont and
Fletcher's' plays were acted for one of Shakespeare's or Jonson's.
In the plays which there is good reason to attribute partly or
entirely to Beaumont, characteristics of style appear that are quite
different from those which we have noticed in Fletcher's work.
1 Lamb, Specimens of the Dramatists.


## p. 119 (#137) ############################################

Style of Beaumont
119
We find here a type of verse which rather resembles that of
Shakespeare's middle period, with a small proportion of double
endings, few redundant syllables in other parts of the verse, no
marked tendency to pause at the end of the line, but a measured
eloquence, and a certain rounded fulness of rhythm, which lend
themselves well to poetical narrative and description.
With this,
there are tolerably frequent instances of occasional rime at the end
of speeches and, also, elsewhere, and a free use of prose as the
language of ordinary conversation. In verse passages, instead of
a succession of short sentences, we notice a tendency, rather, to
complex structure, and to enlargement by repetition or parenthe-
sis, though without any failure in lucidity, and usually with a
faultless balance of clauses. Such sentence and verse structure as
we have in the following passage is quite alien to Fletcher's style :
It were a fitter hour for me to laugh,
When at the altar the religious priest
Were pacifying the offended powers
With sacrifice, than now. This should have been
My rite, and all your hands have been employ'd
In giving me a spotless offering
To young Amintor's bed, as we are now
For you. Pardon, Evadne; 'would my worth
Were great as yours, or that the king, or he,
Or both, thought so! perhaps he found me worthless :
But till he did so, in these ears of mine
These credulous ears, he pour'd the sweetest words
That art or love could framel,
In addition to the more external marks of style, we note in
these plays a feature which is hardly to be found in any of
Fletcher's admitted work, namely, the element of burlesque or
mock-heroic. The Woman Hater, which abounds in this form
of humour, is now generally assigned to Beaumont alone, and
The Knight of the Burning Pestle is admitted to be either
entirely, or almost entirely, his.
Apart from these, the dramas which, upon critical grounds, can,
with confidence, be attributed to the joint authorship of Beaumont
and Fletcher are the following: The Scornful Ladie, Philaster,
The Maides Tragedy, Â King and no King, Cupid 8 Revenge,
The Coxcombe and Four Plays in One. A few others, as Wit At
severall Weapons, The Nice Valour, Loves Cure and The Little
French Lawyer, have been assigned partly to Beaumont, not so
much on the evidence of style, as because it has been thought
that, in their original form, they date from a time when Beaumont
1 The Maides Tragedy, act 11, sc. 1.


## p. 120 (#138) ############################################

I 20
Beaumont and Fletcher
and Fletcher were working in partnership. But the assumption
of an early date for these plays is extremely doubtful, and, even if
this were admitted, it would not follow that the attribution of part
authorship to Beaumont was correct.
From the above list, the superiority of Beaumont's genius in
'tragedy,' that is to say, drama upon the tragic level of serious-
ness, is apparent, for it includes the three most celebrated plays
of this kind in the whole series. And, when we come to examine
these plays more closely, we find reason to believe that the principal
part in them was decisively taken by the younger writer. The
plotting and construction of Philaster, The Maides Tragedy and
A King and no King, in spite of obvious faults, show a firmer
hand than is visible in any of Fletcher's later work, and it is
significant that no source has been found for the plots of any one
of these three plays, which, not improbably, are of the authors'
Jown invention. In the essential feature of artistic unity, they
suggest the work of the young dramatist who, according to tra-
dition, was consulted by Jonson about his plots, and it seems
probable that, in constructive faculty at least, Beaumont was
markedly superior to his colleague. Beaumont shows much the
same liking for romantic incidents which we find in Fletcher, and
sometimes gives a happy solution of an otherwise tragic plot; but
he has far more intensity of conception, and in some of his work
this is combined with an effective use of tragic irony, such as we
do not find in Fletcher's more loosely constructed drama. His
characters, too, are more original and striking, and it seems
probable that the remarkable creations of Evadne and Arbaces
are to be attributed chiefly to Beaumont. Of the more ordinary
characters, certain particular types seem to belong especially
to him, the love-lorn maiden, for example, as exemplified by
Euphrasia in Philaster and by Aspatia in The Maides Tragedy,
and the poetical and romantic young man, as shown in the
persons of Philaster and Amintor. Fletcher's heroines, however
deep in love, are less poetical, more full of resource and less
pureminded than Beaumont's maidens; while his young men
have more of the fashionable gentleman and less of the idealist
than these rather sentimental heroes. A peculiar vein of tender-
ness and delicacy marks some of Beaumont's delineations of lovers
in the less exalted sphere, as the Gerrard and Violante of The
Triumph of Love, and the Ricardo and Viola of The Coxcombe.
Beaumont, as has been already observed, shows a more distinct
affinity than Fletcher with the older Elizabethan school. In pure


## p. 121 (#139) ############################################

Massinger
I21
a
a
comedy, Jonson is his master; but, even here, the imitation of
Shakespeare is frequent, and still more so in Philaster, which has
many points of contact with Hamlet and with Cymbeline, the
latter of which was produced, perhaps, in the same year! . Fletcher,
also, has imitations of Shakespeare; but they are neither so
numerous nor so close as those of his partner.
As regards the remaining plays, we have to take account of
some other authors, and more especially of Massinger. Massinger
is distinguished by a type of verse which has a large proportion
of double endings (though far fewer than Fletcher's), combined
with a free distribution of pauses and a free running-on from line
to line; he uses a periodic structure of sentence in serious or
poetical passages, and inserts parentheses frequently. He can also
be traced by a habit of repeating certain favourite phrases and
images, and the combination of these characteristic expressions
with the metrical and other indications to which we have referred
may generally be regarded as decisive evidence of his authorship.
The features imported by Massinger into the work which he shares
with Fletcher are a more oratorical style of expression, greater
moral earnestness and, in particular, a tendency to throw scenes
into such a form that they contain pleading both for and against a
given thesis. He is stronger than Fletcher in plotting and construc-
tion, and it is observable that, in several of the plays in which
these two are fellow workers, Massinger supplies a framework which
is filled in by Fletcher, whose strength lies in the management of
particular scenes rather than in the conduct of the drama as a
whole. This seems to be the case, for example, with The False
One, The Beggars Bush and The Elder Brother. On the whole,
it may be said that considerable injustice has been done to Mas-
singer by the popular ascription of much of his work to Fletcher:
several of the best dramas of the collection owe their merit very
largely to Massinger.
Fletcher excelled as a master of immediate stage effect, and
none knew better how to compensate for the want of higher
artistic aims by variety of characters, and by a lively succession
of incidents and actions, which leave the spectator no time to reflect
upon the effect of the whole. His aim was to keep his audience
well entertained, and he was often content to produce a series
· See Leonhardt, B. , in Anglia, vol. VIII, pp. 424 ff. ; and Thorndike, A. H. ,
Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare. The contention of the latter, that
Cymbeline is an imitation of Philaster, and not vice versa, is rendered less probable
by the fact that there are many undoubted imitatious of Shakespeare in Philister,
as well as elsewhere in Beaumont and Fletcher,
The


## p. 122 (#140) ############################################

I 22
Beaumont and Fletcher
of effective situations, with no true principle of unity. Langbaine
says,
I have either read or been informed that it was generally Mr Fletcher's
practice, after he had finished three acts of a play, to show them to the
actors, and after they had agreed upon terms, he huddled up the two last
without that proper care which was requisite.
The statement is either true or well invented; and, if true, it
would account for the phenomena observed in such plays as
The Custome of the Countrey and The Pilgrim. Fletcher's almost
regular practice was to take two separate stories, so that the play
might not be deficient in persons and incidents, and to work them
out side by side, establishing such links between them as he con-
veniently could, but often leaving them without vital connection.
The desire for immediate effect leads to the frequent use of
surprises in the development of the plot, and the introduction
of incidents for which no due preparation has been made. Hence, ,
also, a too great fondness for violent situations, and for the repre
sentation of extreme physical agony, as in Valentinian and A
Wife for a Month. Naturally, stage conventions were utilised by
such a dramatist in every possible manner, and a considerable part
is played by sudden change of feeling, including violent and irre-
sistible love, and dramatically unjustifiable conversion of character.
Characterisation is naturally weakened by the excess of incident
in the plot. As Dryden says, the manners can never be evident
where the surprises of fortune take up all the business of the stage,
and where the poet is more in pain to tell you what happened to
such a man than what he was. ' Fletcher's character drawing, in
fact, is rather superficial, and his tendency is to follow certain
well marked lines, so that types, rather than individuals, are pro-
duced. We have, to some extent, a recurrence of the types already
presented in the Beaumont plays; the wicked and lustful monarch
reappearing in Valentinian, Antigonus and Frederick, the im-
possibly loyal subject in Aecius and Archas, the blunt soldier in
Memnon and Leontius. On the other hand, Fletcher seems
especially responsible for the types of superhuman virtue and
of incredible vice in women, which appear in his serious drama,
Lucina, Ordella and Evanthe, on the one hand, and, on the other,
Brunhalt, Lelia and Hippolyta. About all these there is a certain
element of exaggeration : Fletcher's imagination is not fully to be
trusted to present the simple and natural effects of true modesty
and chastity in women, and this is an undeniable blot upon his
* See John Fletcher by Hatcher, 0. L. , pp. 60 ff. , where this subject is well worked
out in detail.


## p. 123 (#141) ############################################

Fletcher's Dramatic Work
123
1
work in the higher drama. In the characters which properly
belong to comedy, he draws from the life and is often highly
successful. There is the young man of wit and gallantry, brilliant
and irresponsible, who may or may not be in love, but is entirely
free from romantic sensibility: Monsieur Thomas, for example, or
Don John, Mirabel or Valentine. These, we feel, are the men
whom Fletcher has actually known in living society : their pro-
fligacy is rather a matter of fashion than anything else; they are
generous and good-hearted, as a rule, and the vice which colours
their conversation and behaviour is not of a very deep dye. Then,
we have the corresponding young woman, witty and resourceful,
well able to take care of herself for the most part, but wanting in
the poetical tenderness of a Viola or an Aspatia. There is a
certain charm about these girls ; but their chastity is too much of
the formal order, and, if we are to judge them by their speech,
we must condemn them as wanting in delicacy. Nevertheless,
Fletcher's Celia and Oriana, Mary and Alinda, are, to some extent,
akin to Shakespeare's Beatrice and Rosalind.
The stories which Fletcher uses for his plays are, perhaps, never
of his own invention. Occasionally, he draws from historical or
quasi-historical sources, as in Thierry and Theodoret, Valentinian,
Bonduca, The False One, The Island Princesse and The Pro-
phetesse; but he deals with these as with romance. The only
example of a drama in which regard is paid to the truth of history
is afforded by Barnavelt, which is based upon contemporary
events in the Netherlands. He took stories from many various
authors, from Bandello (through Painter's Palace of Pleasure)
from the Astrée of Honoré d'Urfé and from d'Audiguier; but the
material which suited his genius best was that which he derived
directly or indirectly from Spanish sources? To these, he turned
comparatively late in his career ; but, from the year 1619 onwards,
he used them very freely. Among the Spanish stories of which
he is known to have made use are Historia de Aurelio y de
Ysabela, El Español Gerardo, no less than three of the Novelas
Exemplares of Cervantes, and also his romance of Persiles y
Sigismunda. Besides these, very probably, there were others which
have not been distinctly identified. The abundance of incident
and the lively style of narration in these stories exactly suited
Fletcher's purpose; but, even here, he usually follows his method of
combining two stories together, so as to increase the number of
1 Cf. on this subject the chapter on the influence of Spanish upon English literature
in vol. VIII, post.


## p. 124 (#142) ############################################

I 24
Beaumont and Fletcher
characters and the bustle of the action. For the most part, it is
evident that French or English translations of these Spanish
stories were used by Fletcher in the construction of his plots, and
it has been questioned whether he was acquainted with the Spanish
lan ge. The contemporary Spanish stage might have supplied
him with abundant materials, and its methods in comedy were not
very unlike his own; but Spanish plays were not very accessible to
English readers ; and, though the assumption has frequently been
made that the Beaumont and Fletcher plays are partly founded
upon Spanish dramas, it is to be noted that this has in no instance
been actually shown to be the case. A recent attempt to prove
that Loves Cure is taken from a comedy by Guillén de Castro can
hardly be regarded as successful.
Fletcher's rapidity of production, evidently, was very consider-
able, and a tolerably correct estimate may be formed of it from the
work of some of his later years, which, owing to the existence of
official records, may be dated with tolerable accuracy. In the
four years 1619–22, he seems to have produced at least sixteen
plays, six by himself alone and the remainder in combination with
Massinger. The total reckoning of about forty plays for the last
twelve years of his life, of which fourteen or fifteen were written
by himself alone, and the remainder in combination with other
authors, gives a result not very different from this, and implies a
ceaseless activity in production which would leave little leisure for
reflection. He was not a great literary artist, but a highly gifted
craftsman, with much fertility of invention and a thorough mastery
of the practical requirements of the stage; while, at the same time,
his work bears witness to a true vein of poetical feeling, and has
an easy grace of style which must attract even those who are most
repelled by his want of high ideals. In this connection, it seems
opportune to call attention to the exceptional excellence of the
songs which appear throughout this collection of dramas. Mas-
singer does not introduce songs into the plays of which he is sole
author, and, though Beaumont was certainly a song-writer—there
is an excellent song in The Woman Hater, for example, and some
of those in The Maides Tragedy are probably his-yet it is evident
that the songs which we find in the plays must be due, for the
most part, to the lyrical genius of Fletcher. Altogether, there are
upwards of seventy; and, of these, at least twenty are extremely
good. Besides being of exquisite quality, the lyrics have a
remarkable range of subject and treatment: 'Hence all you vain
1 Stiefel, A. L. , in Herrig's Archiv, xcix, pp. 271 ff.
9


## p. 125 (#143) ############################################

6
Classification of the Plays
125
delights,' the poet's celebration of melancholy, is followed, in the
same play, after the lapse of a few scenes, by the spirited laughing-
song 'O how my lungs do tickle’; in Valentinian, ‘Care-charming
Sleep' stands side by side with the drinking song, ‘God Lyaeus,
ever young. ' 'All ye woods and trees and bowers' in The Faithfull
Shepheardesse, 'Tell me, dearest, what is love' in The Captaine and
'Beauty clear and fair' in The Elder Brother are examples of the
more gracefully poetical form of lyric; while a more popular and
spirited kind is exemplified in the battle song 'Arm, Arm,' the
convivial lyrics ‘Sit, soldiers, sit and sing' and ''Tis late and cold,'
the beggars' songs in The Beggars Bush, 'Cast our caps and cares
away,' and the rest, the kitchen song, "Three merry boys,' in The
Bloody Brother, and the spirited ballad 'Let the bells ring' of
The Spanish Curate. It may fairly be said that no dramatist of
the age except Shakespeare has given such undeniable proof of
lyrical inspiration as Fletcher.
6
The plays of Beaumont and Fletcher are traditionally classified
as tragedies, tragicomedies and comedies, and, in the preface to
The Faithfull Shepheardesse, Fletcher defines the second of these
forms in a characteristically superficial manner, as follows:
A tragicomedy is not so called in respect of mirth and killing, but in
respect it wants deaths, which is enough to make it no tragedy, yet brings
some near it, which is enough to make it no comedy, which must be a
representation of familiar people, with such kind of trouble as no life be
questioned.
The happy ending of what Dryden calls 'serious plays' was, as
we have seen, more in accordance with the taste of the public
than the tragic catastrophe, and, like Beaumont and Fletcher,
Shakespeare also accommodated himself to the popular demand.
Of the whole collection which passes under the names of Beaumont
and Fletcher, twelve dramas rank as tragedies, in the strict sense
of the term, and about twenty may be called tragicomedies. There
would, however, be no advantage in attaching importance to this
distinction: the tragedies and tragicomedies belong essentially to
the same class-plays in which the romantic interest predominates;
while, at the same time, though there may be a difficulty, some-
times, in drawing the line between tragicomedy and comedy, the
latter, on the whole, is to be regarded as a distinct genus, and may
,
properly be dealt with separately.
A part, then, from comedy, the first production was probably The
Faithfull Shepheardesse, a pastoral drama by Fletcher alone.
Though superior in liveliness of dramatic action to the Italian


## p. 126 (#144) ############################################

I 26
Beaumont and Fletcher
pastoral dramas which served as its models, it was unsuccessful on
the stage-a fact attributed by its author to the absence of that
peculiar combination of 'mirth and killing' intermixed with
"Whitsun ales and morris-dances' which the public expected from
a 'pastoral tragicomedy. ' In respect of poetical beauty, The
Faithfull Shepheardesse ranks very high, and Milton paid it the
compliment of imitation in Comus! The greater part is in rime;
but the opening scenes are mainly in blank verse, and it is noticeable
that here Fletcher does not display the metrical peculiarities which
are a marked feature of his style elsewhere, a fact which, perhaps,
should make us cautious in the application of metrical tests to
the earliest plays of the series, though in The Maides Tragedy
Fletcher's characteristics are already quite apparent.
Philaster is said by Dryden to have been the first play which
brought Beaumont and Fletcher into notice, and it certainly
enjoyed great popularity. Its merits, both dramatic and poetical,
are undeniable ; but the plot has been justly criticised because of
the too ready credence given by Philaster to the charge against his
mistress. The character of Euphrasia-Bellario, who follows in the
disguise of a page the person to whom she is romantically attached,
is, to some extent, a reproduction of Shakespeare's Viola, and close
resemblances have been noted between this play and others of
Shakespeare; but the use which we have here of surprise as a
means of dramatic effect is highly characteristic of the authors.
The poetical merit of several passages in Philaster is well known,
and especially the description of the first finding of Bellario.
The leading place among the dramas of Beaumont and Fletcher
has always been held by The Maides Tragedy, and the justice of
this popular judgment cannot reasonably be questioned. The plot,
like those of Philaster and A King and no King, seems to be of
the authors' own invention. The tragic situation, unpleasing as it
may be, is admirably developed, and the two principal characters,
the brother and sister Melantius and Evadne, are powerfully pre-
sented and may fairly claim the merits of truth and consistency.
There is a certain weakness, however, in the character of Amintor,
whose reverence for the sacred name of king amounts to a disease;
and Aspatia, in spite of the pathos of her situation and the poetical
attractions with which she is invested, is lacking in reserve and
dignity and displays too much extravagance in seeking her own
death at the hands of Amintor. Little further fault is to be found

1 As to the place of The Faithfull Shepheardesse in English pastoral drama, cf. post,
chap. xiu.


## p. 127 (#145) ############################################

Tragedies and Romantic Dramas 127
with The Maides Tragedy, of which the action is developed in a
series of scenes of great dramatic effectiveness, culminating in that
between Melantius and Evadne at the crisis of the plot. The
dramatists exhibit a true knowledge of human nature in showing
us how the profligate effrontery of Evadne, against which the pure-
minded Amintor is powerless, breaks down when confronted with her
brother's ruthless determination. Her sensuous nature is, at first,
capable of being influenced only by physical terror, and it is through
this motive that she is brought to realise the depth of infamy to
which she has fallen. With equal truth, she is represented as
readily accepting the idea of blotting out her guilt by a deed of
violent revenge, and as imagining that she will pave the way to a
reconciliation with Amintor by a deed which merely strikes him
with new horror. Some of the minor characters are excellently
drawn, and the scene in which Melantius urges Callianax in the
very presence of the king to yield up to him the keys of the fort
has true comic humour, while, at the same time, it is strictly
appropriate to the plot and the characters. A good deal of
imitation of Shakespeare is again apparent—especially in the cele-
brated quarrel between Melantius and Amintor, which is partly
suggested by that between Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar.
A King and no King, licensed for the stage in 1611, was
hardly less celebrated than The Maides Tragedy, and undoubtedly
it displays dramatic power of a very high order. The praise of
this play must be qualified, however, by consideration of one capital
fault. The supposed incestuous passion, with which the plot deals,
instead of leading to a tragic catastrophe, is fully condoned on the
strength of a merely accidental discovery. Apart from this, the
drama is admirable. In the vainglorious and passionate character
of Arbaces, we have an original creation of great merit, to which the
blunt Mardonius, with his fearless plainspeaking, serves as an ad-
mirable foil; while Bessus, imitated, to some extent, from Bobadill,
is one of the most amusing specimens of his class. There is a
concentrated power in the development of this drama which creates
a strong impression as to the dramatic ability of the authors,
though, for the reason which has been stated, the total result
remains not altogether satisfactory.
Cupid's Revenge was, perhaps, acted in 1612. The plot has been
found fault with as based upon mythology; but this does not seem to
be a valid objection here. Whatever the machinery may be, we accept
the actual results as the natural punishment of youthful arrogance,
the brother and sister who have planned to put down the worship


## p. 128 (#146) ############################################

128
Beaumont and Fletcher
6
of love being themselves involved in ruin through their passion for
unworthy objects. The real weakness of the drama lies in the want
of concentration: the death of Hidaspes occurs in the second act,
before the main complication has been fully developed, and the
death of her brother Leucippus at the end of the fifth act is, after
all, accidental and unnecessary. The characters of Leucippus and
of Bacha are well sustained, and the scenes between them are
effectively conducted. In the disguises of Urania and in the
rescue of Leucippus by the citizens, we have a repetition of devices
already used in Philaster.
Four Plays in One, of uncertain date, consists of an induction
and four 'Triumphs'—'of Honour,' 'of Love,' 'of Death' and 'of
Time? '—the former two, probably, by Beaumont and the latter two
by Fletcher. Beaumont's contributions are here distinctly the
more interesting and valuable.
The Captaine is an ill constructed drama (as the authors seem
to be aware), having two sets of characters with little connection
between them. It has no merits sufficient to compensate for the
odiousness of the character of Lelia, whose conversion is not ren-
dered in the least credible. The play, however, contains two charming
songs, ‘Tell me, dearest, what is love,' and 'Away delights. '
The Honest mans Fortune was played in 1613; but it contains
no apparent trace of Beaumont's style. Several authors-probably
Tourneur, Massinger and Field-were here concerned with Fletcher,
and, between them, they produced a piece of patchwork which is
far from satisfactory as a drama, though particular scenes and
speeches deserve praise. Fletcher’s part, apparently, is confined to
the fifth act. To nearly the same date belongs the first production
of King Henry VIII, in which we find excellent work by Fletcher
in combination with that of Shakespeare? .
Bonduca, for which Fletcher was mainly responsible, is one
of the most effective of the tragic romances.
It is founded upon
ancient British history; but the materials are very freely handled,
the stories of Boadicea and Caractacus being brought into com-
bination. The play presents a spirited succession of camp and
battle scenes, made interesting, first, by the figures of Bonduca and
her daughters, and then by those of the heroic Caractacus and the
brave boy Hengo—the latter an original creation of the dramatist,
which strongly engages our sympathies.
1 Cf. ante, chap. IV, as to Five Plays in One assigned on insufficient grounds to
Thomas Heywood.
2 Cf. ante, vol. v, chap. VIII, p. 195.


## p. 129 (#147) ############################################

Tragedies and Romantic Dramas 129
Valentinian, by Fletcher alone, is, in some respects, the most
typical example of his work in tragedy. The situation is admirably
prepared in the first act, and the events are successfully conducted
through the scenes of the second to a tragic climax in the third.
From this point, however, the author's desire to rouse interest by
new and surprising developments gets the better of his feeling for
dramatic propriety. A new series of events is introduced, for
which we are totally unprepared; and the revolting treachery of
Maximus towards his friend, together with the revelation of his
selfish designs, turns our sympathy away from the quarter to which
it was at first directed, and leaves us finally puzzled and dissatisfied.
Aecius, perfectly plainspoken to his sovereign on the subject of
his vices, but steadily maintaining the principle of loyalty and
discipline, is an excellent character, and by no means deserves
the reproach of servility which was cast upon him by Coleridge and
has been repeated by other critics. It may be added that this
tragedy is exceptionally rich in beautiful lyrics.
The date of The Bloody Brother, or Rollo, Duke of Normandy
is uncertain; but it was probably produced about the year 1616.
It is an effective drama, and was reckoned by Rymer with Philaster,
The Maides Tragedy and A King and no King, as among the most
celebrated tragedies of its age. Four authors seem to have been
concerned in this play, and it is probable that the remarkable
political reflections in the first scene of the fourth act are
to be ascribed to Jonson. A small part only is by Fletcher,
to whom, however, are due the striking scenes between Rollo and
Edith in the third and fifth acts. Of the former of these scenes,
Coleridge remarks that it exhibits 'probably the grandest working
of passion in all Beaumont and Fletcher's dramas'; the latter he
criticises severely because of the momentary weakening of Edith's
resolve, comparing her with lady Anne in Richard III. But it is
one thing for a woman to hesitate in the execution of her purpose
to kill, because of the apparent repentance of her victim, and quite
another for her to yield to flattery and accept as a lover the
murderer of her husband. Fletcher, Massinger and a third author,
apparently, took part in the tragedy of Thierry and Theodoret,
which probably belongs to the year 1617. Here, the purity and
self-sacrifice of Ordella are well contrasted with the wantonness
and cruelty of Brunhalt, and the scene in the fourth act
between Thierry and Ordella has been justly admired. 'I have
always considered this to be the finest scene in Fletcher,'
is Lamb's remark, followed, nevertheless, by criticisms of the
E. L. VI.
9
>
CH, V.


## p. 130 (#148) ############################################

130
Beaumont and Fletcher
conduct of it, as slow and languid compared with Shakespeare's
best.
The Queene of Corinth is a poor play. The sympathy which
Merione at first excites is totally destroyed by her subsequent
behaviour. The Loyal Subject, licensed in the autumn of 1618,
exhibits, in the person of its hero Archas, a partial repetition
of Aecius. Like many of Fletcher's plays, this is simply a
dramatised romance, with no proper complication or resolution.
The story is interesting enough; but the disguise of young
Archas serves no such useful purpose as to compensate for its
improbability, and the conversion of Boroskie can hardly be called
natural.
The Knight of Malta has many of the elements of a fine drama,
especially in the first and fifth acts, which are by an unknown
author. The character of Oriana is exalted and yet human ;
while Mountferrat is a genuinely romantic villain. But the de-
vice of Miranda in fighting against Oriana's champion, in order
to save her credit by voluntary defeat, has no merit except that
of surprise.
The plot of The Mad Lover is hopelessly absurd, and very
deficient in respect of unity; but the courtship of Memnon is
certainly amusing, and the conclusion of the play is well managed.
There is a poor attempt at a fool, the only character of the kind
in Beaumont and Fletcher's plays. Women pleas'd is still more
faulty in construction. It contains two very distinct plots, with
two separate sets of characters, which have little or nothing to do
with one another, a practice too often followed in the later plays.
There are some interesting scenes, but the drama cannot be said
to be of much value as a whole.
The tragedy of Sir John van Olden Barnavelt, by Fletcher and
Massinger, has special interest as a dramatisation of contemporary
history, and is remarkable as an indication of the readiness with
which these authors were able to utilise such materials as
presented themselves. It is a somewhat hasty piece of work,
produced in August 1619, and dealing with events which had
taken place in May of the same year. The trial scene is
rhetorically effective; but the character of Barnavelt is not
represented in a sufficiently consistent manner, and the necessity
of reproducing the actual course of events was not favourable to
a strictly dramatic development.
The Custome of the Countrey, by Fletcher and Massinger, founded
on the Persiles y Sigismunda of Cervantes, is a drama of consider-
a


## p. 131 (#149) ############################################

Tragedies and Romantic Dramas 131
able merit, but unfortunately marred by grossness in some of the
scenes. The scene in which Guiomar conceals the supposed slayer
of her son is admirably managed, and the contrast of Zenocia and
Hippolyta is effective; but the conversion of Hippolyta is one
of those sudden turns to which Fletcher too frequently sacrifices
consistency of character.
It is doubtful whether Fletcher had any hand in The Lawes of
Candy, and certainly no scene can be attributed to him as a whole.