No More Learning



## 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.
Massinger probably was the principal author, and the judicial
pleading between father and son is quite characteristic of him.
The double Marriage, by Fletcher and Massinger, is a poor play,
with a confused plot and no sufficient reason for the catastrophe.
On the other hand, The False One, produced by the same authors
at about the same time, is a drama of considerable interest, and
contains much brilliant rhetoric, especially in the speeches of Caesar
in the second act. At the same time, it cannot be said to have a
genuinely dramatic structure, and, though the conclusion involves
the death of several persons, the play, properly speaking, is not a
tragedy.
In the plays which immediately follow, romantic interest de-
cidedly predominates. The Pilgrim, usually classed as a comedy,
is, in fact, as Coleridge calls it, a 'romantic entertainment,' and one
of considerable merit, though the high promise of the opening
scenes is not fully kept. We could very well dispense with the
madhouse; but the public of that day evidently found such repre-
sentations attractive. The Prophetesse, The Island Princesse and
The Sea Voyage have little merit as dramas, and such interest
as they possess is due partly to the remoteness from ordinary
experience of the circumstances and localities represented.
In The Beggars Bush, on the other hand, though the plot is
romantic, the interest of the play depends not on this, but upon
the attempt at a realistic representation of vagabond life. In this
it has distinct originality, and the authors have gone direct to
native English sources. The liveliness and truth to nature of these
scenes are sufficient to account for the exceptional popularity of
the play.
The Lovers Progress is an interesting drama, originally,
perhaps, by Fletcher, but extensively revised and altered by
Massinger. The play exhibits love and friendship in an exalted
and poetical manner : the speech of Clarange near the beginning
of the second act, describing his friendship with Lidius, reads like
a personal reminiscence by Fletcher of his own relations with
9_2


## p. 132 (#150) ############################################

132
Beaumont and Fletcher
Beaumont. The ghost scene at the inn, which was greatly admired
by Scott, has some comic humour, but serves chiefly to show how
incapable Fletcher was of dealing with the supernatural. The later
appearance of the ghost, which is more impressive, occurs in a
scene which, in its present form, is due to Massinger.
The Maid in the Mill, by Fletcher and William Rowley, is an
ill constructed play, with some poetry, and some fairly good comic
business
A Wife for a Month, by Fletcher alone, has an ingeniously
complicated plot, and is far superior in construction to most of the
author's dramatic romances. The rather unpleasant situation is
developed with considerable power and skill, and the play contains
many poetical passages. The immodest speeches of the 'chaste
wife' Evanthe, and the easy forgiveness of Frederick and his
instruments of villainy, are characteristic of Fletcher.
The vexed question of authorship connected with The Two
Noble Kinsmen cannot here be discussed. Fletcher's contribution
to this fine heroic romance is, on the whole, of secondary import-
ance; but one of his scenes, the last in the third act, is, dramatically,
perhaps the most effective in the play? Loves Pilgrimage is
a romance from Cervantes, apparently rewritten by Shirley with
insertions from Jonson's New Inne. It has some merit as a story,
and the serious scenes are unusually thoughtful. The Faire Maide
of the Inne was produced after Fletcher's death, and it is doubtful
whether he had any hand in it, for his style is not clearly per-
ceptible in any scene. The plot, derived from Spanish sources, is
badly put together and extremely improbable. Another example
of a drama wrongly ascribed to Beaumont and Fletcher in the
seventeenth century is The Coronation, which is contained in
the folio of 1679, but is known to be by Shirley. On the other
hand, A Very Woman, or The Prince of Tarent, ascribed to
Massinger, is, apparently, in part by Fletcher, to whom we
may reasonably ascribe the whole of the third act, including
the lively slavemarket scene, and a part of the fourth. The
Faithful Friends, printed for the first time in 1812, has no
sufficient claim to be included among Beaumont and Fletcher's
works.
The list of comedies begins with The Woman Hater, which,
apparently, is by a single author, and is now generally attributed
1 As to the distinctness of the shares of Fletcher and Rowley in this play, see ante,
chap. in.
2 Compare ante, vol. v, chap. 2.


## p. 133 (#151) ############################################

Comedies
133
to Beaumont alone. It exhibits strongly the influence of Jonson,
and, though not a comedy of humours, in the full sense of the
term, turns entirely upon the ‘humorous' eccentricity of the
principal character. This feature is still discernible, though
much less obvious, in The Scornful Ladie, an excellent comedy
of its kind, dealing with English domestic manners. This was one
of the most popular plays of the series, and exercised a considerable
influence on the later comedy, especially by virtue of the character
of the steward Savile, and his relations with his masters. The
conversion of Morecraft, which is criticised by Dryden as un-
natural, is not really open to this objection. The usurer has
become convinced by experience that what pays best is extrava-
gance, and, therefore, he is following his natural instincts in
becoming a prodigal. The mock heroic style, which is one of
Beaumont's characteristics, appears, to some extent, in these
comedies, and reaches full development in The Knight of the
Burning Pestle, a masterpiece in its own kind. The idea sug-
gested by Don Quixote was here ingeniously and brilliantly applied
to the purpose of ridiculing the taste of the city in drama-a fact
which probably accounts for its being coldly received by the
popular audience before which it was first acted. Its comic merits
are, undoubtedly, of a high order, especially in the characteristic
figures of the citizen and his wife and in their criticisms of the
performance.
In The Coxcombe, we have a romantic comedy with two distinct
plots. For the Ricardo and Viola story, Beaumont is mainly
responsible, and this little romance is treated in a charming
manner. The tinker and his trull are represented, probably by
Fletcher, with effective realism, and the scenes at the farmhouse
are interesting and natural. Side by side with this, we have a
comedy of intrigue, taken, perhaps, from the Curioso Impertinente
of Cervantes. Some of Antonio's tricks recall those of Loveless
in The Scornful Ladie.
It cannot be said with certainty that Beaumont had a part
in any of the remaining comedies, and the genius of Fletcher is
decisively dominant from this point onwards, though other writers
sometimes worked with him. The faults of Fletcher as a dramatist-
looseness of construction and superficiality in character—are less
fatal in comedy than in serious drama, while his abundance of
lively incident and his brilliant dialogue produce their full effect.
Nevertheless, his comedies suffer too frequently from want of vital
connection between the various intrigues utilised by the plot, and


## p. 134 (#152) ############################################

134
Beaumont and Fletcher
even the best of them succeed rather by clever stagecraft than
by genuinely artistic merit.
Several of these plays may be classed together as exhibiting
the Jonsonian principle of 'humour,' though hardly in the Jon-
sonian manner. These are, especially, The Little French Lawyer,
The Nice Valour and The Humorous Lieutenant. In the first, by
Fletcher and Massinger, the character of La Writ, who gives a
title to the play, is genuinely comic, but not absolutely necessary
to the plot. The Nice Valour is a poor play, notwithstanding
a confident assertion to the contrary in the epilogue; but it
contains several good lyrics, including the song, 'Hence all you
vain delights. ' The Humorous Lieutenant, by Fletcher alone, takes
its name, like The Little French Lawyer, from a character which
has no very essential connection with the principal plot. The part
which concerns the lieutenant is pure farce, lively and amusing
enough; while, in the main plot, we have the romance of an un-
usually attractive pair of lovers, though it must be remarked that
their situation is a very improbable one.
This combination, or juxtaposition, of a romantic with a comic
plot, which has been noted as a frequent feature of the so-called
tragicomedies, is exemplified, also, in The Spanish Curate, which
consists, in fact, of a romance and a comedy, combined under
a title which belongs properly to the comedy. We have here two
distinct stories with very small connection between them, though
an attempt is made at the conclusion to unite them under a
single moral lesson. Roughly speaking, it may be said that the
romance is by Massinger and the comedy by Fletcher : each is
excellent, but the comedy is the better of the two. The character
of the curate and his relations with his parishioners are presented
with the greatest comic vigour, and the intrigue of Leandro and
Amaranta furnishes a good example of the manner in which
Fletcher anticipated the comedy of the Restoration.
The cooperation of two or more dramatists was evidently
favourable to the production of this class of drama. But there is to
be found, chiefly among the plays which are ascribed to Fletcher
alone, a type of pure comedy which is less liable to the charge of
want of unity. Some of these plays, as Wit At severall Weapons,
Wit Without Money, The Womans Prize and The Night-Walker
have London for their locality and represent, more or less, the
manners of contemporary English life. Wit At severall Weapons
is a poor play, and the authorship is very uncertain. Wit Without
Money, by Fletcher alone, is much better, having, at least, a


## p. 135 (#153) ############################################

Comedies
135
tolerably well connected plot and lively dialogue. The Womans
Prize: or, The Tamer Tamed is a supposed continuation of the
marriage experiences of Petruchio, the tamer of the shrew. His
Katharine being dead, he has been transplanted to English ground
and is united in marriage to an English wife, who turns the tables
upon him in an exhilarating manner. This comedy is a good
example of Fletcher's more farcical style. The Night-Walker, or
the Little Theife has more of London local colour than any of the
rest, but this is probably to a great extent due to Shirley, who
worked upon the play after Fletcher's death. It is a lively
comedy, but the plot is a tissue of improbable incidents, with
melodramatic scenes of coffins and graveyards.
Fletcher's best comedies, however, are to be found among those
of which the scenes are laid abroad and the plots taken from foreign
sources, while the manners are those of the society with which he is
familiar. Monsieur Thomas can hardly be called a good play, though
it has good scenes. The dilemma of the travelled young gentleman,
who is obliged, at the same time, to convince his father that he
is a rake and his mistress that he is a reformed character, has
comic possibilities which are not quite effectively worked out. On
the other hand, The Chances and The Wild-Goose Chase stand in
the first rank among Fletcher's comedies, and in them we see, in
full perfection, that lively and brilliant style of dialogue which
gained him the reputation of understanding the conversation of
gentlemen better than any other dramatist of his time. In The
Chances, there is a series of highly improbable incidents, derived
from a novel of Cervantes; but the very name of the comedy
suggests the idea of fortuitous complications, and the treatment is
in accordance with this idea. The two young gentlemen, Don John
and Don Frederick, are presented in a very lively and natural
manner, and their landlady is a decidedly happy creation, for
which, however, hints had been given by Cervantes. The
Wild-Goose Chase, again, has good characterisation and a well
managed plot, though the tricks to catch Mirabel are rather
too palpable, and his final yielding not quite natural. Of this play,
the actors who first published it record that, notwithstanding his
innate modesty, the author, when he saw it performed, could not
forbear to join in the general applause. It is the original of
Farquhar's comedy The Inconstant. Of all Fletcher's comedies,
Rule a Wife And have a Wife is that which was most popular
and kept the stage longest, and it is certainly a very good specimen
of its kind. Its two plots are reasonably well connected, the


## p. 136 (#154) ############################################

136 Beaumont and Fletcher
characterisation is firm and good and several of the scenes,
especially that in which Leon asserts himself, are, dramatically,
very effective. The underplot is amusing, but less so than the
novel of Cervantes from which it is taken.
Loves Cure, or The Martial Maid apparently contains little or
nothing which can be ascribed to Fletcher. It is not without
merit, if we concede the very improbable situation upon which its
action depends; but the merit, perhaps, is chiefly due to a Spanish
original, though it seems unlikely that this original was the
comedy of Guillén de Castro which deals with the same story.
The Noble Gentleman and The Elder Brother were both produced
upon the stage after Fletcher's death. The former is a rather poor
play, and has no apparent traces of his hand; the latter, one of
the best comedies of the series, is by Fletcher and Massinger.
The construction is good and the characterisation excellent.
It was said by Dryden in An Essay of Dramatick Poesy that
in Beaumont and Fletcher's plays the English language perhaps
arrived at its highest perfection; and certainly, for purity of phrase
and vocabulary, for simplicity of expression and for absence of
conceits and violent metaphors, they present an admirable model
both of the more poetical and the more familiar style of dramatic
expression. This merit of style was recognised by their contem-
poraries, especially with regard to Fletcher, as we see from the
prologue to The Chances and in compliments such as are
addressed to him in the next generation by Berkenhead,
No savage metaphors (things rudely great)
Thou dost display, nor butcher a conceit:
Thy nerves have beauty which invades and charms,
Looks like a princess harness'd in bright arms.
But the praise must also be shared by Massinger, whose poetical
eloquence contributes much to the grace of style which charac-
terises the later romantic plays mentioned in this chapter, and
who may be said to have taken the place of Beaumont by
Fletcher's side in this respect, though inferior to him in con-
structive skill and in power of dramatic presentation. It is
probable that the popularity of Beaumont and Fletcher on
the stage in the latter part of the century, together with the
acceptance of their language by Dryden as a standard of pure
English, had more influence than is commonly acknowledged upon
the development of English style during that period in the direction
of classical simplicity.


## p. 137 (#155) ############################################

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V
LIST OF THE PLAYS WHICH HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO BEAUMONT AND
FLETCHER, IN APPROXIMATELY CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, WITH INDICATIONS
OF THE PROBABLE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PLAYS AND OF THE SEVERAL PORTIONS
OF THEM, AND ALSO OF THE CHIEF SOURCES FROM WHICH THEIR PLOTS ARE
DERIVED.
In cases where no source is mentioned, none is certainly known. Where
no date of printing is given, it may be assumed that the play was first
printed in the folio of 1647.
The Woman Hater, entered in Stationers' register, 20 May 1607; printed
1607. Beaumont. Plot, partly from Paulus Jovius, De Romanis Piscibus,
cap. v.
The Faithfull Shepheardesse, printed before May 1610. Fletcher. Some
traits suggested by Tasso's Aminta and Guarini's Pastor Fido.
The Knight of the Burning Pestle, perhaps acted at Whitefriars, 1609;
printed 1613. Chiefly Beaumont. General idea suggested by Don Quixote,
though this is denied by the publisher.
The Scornful Ladie, acted 1609 or 1610; printed 1616. Beaumont and
Fletcher.
The Coxcombe, first acted probably 1610. Beaumont and Fletcher. For
the story of Antonio, cf. Greene's Philomela and El Curioso Impertinente
in Don Quixote.
Philaster, acted probably 1610 (but the supposed reference in The Scourge
of Folly is doubtful); printed 1620. Mainly Beaumont; Fletcher, perhaps
act v, so.
3, 4 and detached passages elsewhere. '
The Maides Tragedy, acted probably 1611; printed 1619. Beaumont,
acts I, II, III, IV, sc. 2, act v, sc. 4; Fletcher, act iv, sc. 1, act v, sc. 1, 2, 3.
A King and no King, licensed 1611; printed 1619. Beaumont, acts I, II,
III, IV, sc. 4, act v, sc. 2, 4; Fletcher, acts iv, sc. 1, 2, 3, act v, sc. 1, 3.
Cupid's Revenge, perhaps acted at court, Jan. 1612; printed 1615.
Beaumont and Fletcher. From Sidney's Arcadia, bk. II.
Four Plays, or Morall Representations, in One; no indication of date.
Beaumont probably wrote the induction and the first two Triumphs, Fletcher
the rest. The Triumph of Honour, partly from Chaucer, of Love, Boccaccio,
Decameron, day v, nov. 7, of Death, cf. Palace of Pleasure, bk 1, nov. 42,
of Time, probably suggested by Lucian's dialogue Timon.
The Captaine, acted at court early in 1613. Fletcher and another, perhaps
Massinger.
The Maske of the Gentlemen of Grayes-Inne, and the Inner-Temple,
performed Feb. 1613; printed probably 1613. Beaumont.
King Henry VIII, acted June 1613; printed in the Shakespeare folio,
1623. Shakespeare and Fletcher, perhaps revised by Massinger.
The Honest mans Fortune, acted 1613; licensed again, probably with
alterations, 1624. Apparently by four authors, divided perhaps as follows:
Tourneur, act 1; Massinger, act 11, sc. 1; Field, act iv; Fletcher, act v; the
rest doubtful. The very distinctive metrical style of act 1 is like that of The
Atheist's Tragedie, the only extant play published with Tourneur's name.


## p. 138 (#156) ############################################

138
Appendix to Chapter V V
The style of Field resembles somewhat that of Beaumont. The same story
is found in Heywood's History of Women, printed 1624.
Wit At severall Weapons, date unknown. Probably Middleton and
Rowley.
Monsieur Thomas (also known as Father's own Son), date uncertain;
printed 1639. Fletcher. Partly from the Astrée of d'Urfé, vol. 11, published
1610.
The Tragedie of Valentinian, not later than 1614 (by list of actors).
Fletcher. From the Astrée, vol. 11, bk. XII.
The Tragedie of Bonduca, not later than 1614 (by list of actors).
Fletcher and, perhaps, Field (e. g. act 11, sc. 1 and act iv, sc. 4). Holinshed;
some traits perhaps from The Valiant Welshman.
Wit Without Money, soon after Aug. 1614; printed 1639. Fletcher.
The Womans Prize: or, The Tamer Tamed, date unknown. Fletcher. A
sequel to Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew.
The Bloody Brother, or Rollo, Duke of Normandy, date uncertain; printed
1639 (by B. J. F. ') and 1640 (“by John Fletcher"). Probably four authors:
Massinger, acts I, v, sc. 1; Fletcher, act 11, sc. 3, act III, sc. 1 (part), 2, act v,
80. 2; Jonson, act 11, sc. 1, 2, act iv, so. 1, 2; Field, act 111, so. 1 (except scene
of Rollo and Edith), act iv, sc. 3.
The Queene of Corinth, probably 1617 (allusion to Coryate's Greeting
(1616), act 111, sc. 1). Fletcher, Massinger and a third author. Based on a
common story, cf. Gesta Romanorum, tale 4; not taken from La Fuerza de
la sangre of Cervantes.
Thierry and Theodoret, probably after April 1617; printed 1621. Fletcher,
act 1, sc. 1, act 11, sc. 2, act iv, sc. 1, act v, so. 2; Massinger, act 1, sc. 2, act 11,
sc. 1, act iv, sc. 2; a third author, acts III and v, sc. 1. Historical basis;
immediate source, perhaps de Serres. The name de Vitry seems to indicate
an allusion to the death of marshal d’Ancre, April 1617.
The Loyal Subject, licensed Nov. 1618. Fletcher. (The plot of Hey-
wood's Royall King and Loyall Subject, from Painter, bk. 11, nov. 4, has only
a slight resemblance to this story. )
The Knight of Malta, 1618 or the beginning of 1619 (by list of actors).
Fletcher, acts 11, III, so. 1, act iv, sc. 2, 3, 4; Massinger, act 111, sc. 2, act iv,
sc. 1(? ); third author, acts 1, v. The style of the third author is somewhat
like that of Field, but better than his usual work.
The Mad Lover, before March 1619. Fletcher.
The Humorous Lieutenant, 1619 (by list of actors). Fletcher. Partly
from Plutarch, lives of Pelopidas and Demetrius. A somewhat fuller text
than that of the folios was printed by Dyce in 1830 from a MS in which the
play is entitled Demetrius and Enanthe.
Sir John van Olden Barnavelt, acted 1619; printed 1883. Fletcher and
Massinger. Founded on the events of May 1619.
Women pleas'd, 1619 or 1620 (by list of actors). Fletcher. From the
Historia de Aurelio y de Ysabela, of Juan de Flores, of which several trans-
lations were current, combined with Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale. For
various scenes of the underplot, cf. Boccaccio, Decameron, day vii, nov. 6, 8,
and day viii, nov. 8.
The Custome of the Countrey, 1619 or 1620. Fletcher, acts I, III, sc. 1, 2, 3,
act iv, sc. 3, 4, act v, sc. 5 (part); Massinger, acts II, III, sc. 4, 5, act iv, sc. 1, 2,
act v, sc. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (part). Two principal elements of the plot are from
Cervantes, Trabajos de Persiles y Sigismunda (Eng. trans. Stationers'
register, 22 Feb. 1619), bk. III, chap. 6, and bk. iv, chaps. 6–10, and most of
the names are from this romance, but some applied differently.
The Little French Lawyer, 1619 or 1620. Fletcher, acts II, III, sc. 2, 3,
a


## p. 139 (#157) ############################################

Appendix to Chapter V
139
а
2, 3.
acts iv, v, sc. 1 (a), 2, 3; Massinger, acts I, III, 8c. 1, act v, sc. 1 (6). Partly
from part 1 of Guzman de Alfarache (vol. 1, chap. 4), or from a similar story
elsewhere.
The Lawes of Candy, about 1620. Probably Massinger and another
anthor (not Fletcher) Partly from Cinthio, Hecatommithi, dec. X, nov. 9.
The False One, about 1620. Fletcher, acts 11, III, IV; Massinger, acts 1, v.
The double Marriage, about 1620. Fletcher, acts II, III, sc. 2, 3, act iv,
sc. 3, 4, act v, sc. 1; Massinger, acts I, III, sc. 1, act iv, sc. 1, 2, act v, so.
For the plot, cf. Gesta Romanorum, tale 5.
The Pilgrim, acted at court, Christmas 1621. Fletcher. Perhaps partly
from d'Audiguier, Les diverses fortunes de Pamphile et de Nise (1614),
which, again, is from Lope de Vega’s romance El Peregrino en su patria;
but the resemblance is only in trifling details, and there may be no connection.
The Wild-Goose Chase, acted at court, 1621; printed 1652. Fletcher.
The Island Princesse, acted at court, 1621. Fletcher. From La Conquista
de las Islas Malucas by Bart. de Argensola, printed 1609; but Fletcher
deviates from his source in acts iv and v.
The Beggars Bush, acted at court, 1622, but produced probably some time
earlier. Fletcher, act 11, sc. 1, 2, acts III, IV; Massinger, acts I, II, sc. 3, act v.
The Prophetesse, licensed 14 May 1622. Fletcher, acts I, III, V, sc. 3;
Massinger, acts II, IV, V, sc. 1, 2. Partly historical: the story of Diocletian
and the prophetess is told by Vopiscus.
The Sea Voyage, licensed 22 June 1622. Anthors doubtful: considerable
portions of acts I and iv are by Fletcher, but no scene, as we have it, can be
attributed wholly to him; it is doubtful whether Massinger had any share:
the metre, generally, is very defective.
The Spanish Curate, licensed 24 Oct. 1622. Fletcher, acts II, 111, sc. 1, 2, 4,
act iv, sc. 3, 5, 6, 7, act v, sc. 2; Massinger, acts I, III, sc. 3, act iv, sc. 1, 2, 4,
act v, sc. 1, 3 (Massinger deals with the main plot, and Fletcher with the
underplot). From Gerardo the Unfortunate Spaniard, a translation,
published 1622, of the (prose) romance by Gonzalo de Cespedes y Meneses,
entitled Poema tragico del Español Gerardo. The situation in the main
plot, of Don Henrique, Don Jamie, etc. , is from the conclusion of the first
part of Gerardo, pp. 231 ff. (ed. 1622), but the final development is different:
the plot of Leandro, Lopez, etc. follows closely the story told by Leandro in
the second part, pp. 246–266, omitting the conclusion as supplied by
Violante.