TABLE OF JOINT PLAYS BY FLETCHER AND MIDDLETON (?); FLETCHER AND ROWLEY; FLETCHER
AND SHIRLEY; MASSINGER AND FIELD; MASSINGER AND DEKKER; MIDDLETON AND ROWLEY.

The work in the Bloody Brother is curiously arranged. Fletcher wrote all the parts connected with the poisoning attempted by La Torch,—namely, ii. 1, 2; iii. 2; and the parts involving Edith,—namely, iii. 2; v. 2; and the impassioned speeches of Edith in iii. I ; v. I; the rest is not his. The Maid in the Mill is noticeable as being one of the plays containing prose in which Fletcher had a share that were produced after Beaumont's death and during Fletcher's lifetime. Fletcher's part was the story of Ismenia, and Rowley's that of Florimel, at the outset ; but they soon changed the parts, and after changing kept them distinct to the end. I cannot agree with Dyce in assigning Rollo and The Queen of Corinth partly to Rowley; they seem much more like Middleton, and are far removed from Rowley's style.

I

We have now left for consideration only the group of plays produced before Beaumont's death. The dates of most of these are known; but some we cannot determine from external evidence. have assigned conjectural dates to them, for reasons which will appear. Before examining these, it is necessary to determine the general characteristics of Beaumont's metre. This has been hitherto regarded as an insoluble problem. The habit, of which we are traditionally and rightly informed, which Beaumont and Fletcher had contracted, namely, that of writing together in the same scene, seems to forbid any analysis being applied which can separate the two authors' work. This separation can, however, be made, to some extent. We know from our second group (of Fletcher's undoubted plays) what his characteristics are-no prose; many double endings; pauses at the end of lines. If we find any work in which these characteristics are entirely absent, that work will probably not be Fletcher's. Now, there is a work called Four Plays in One, that is evidently by two authors. The first two of these short plays are in every respect different from the other two. The latter two are in Fletcher's usual style. In 7 pages we find 673 double endings; 5 rhymes; 4 incomplete lines In the former two plays, in 18 pages there are only 172 double endings; 85 rhymes; 13 incomplete lines, and a considerable amount of prose; the lines also are in Shakespeare's later manner, ending on particles, &c., so as to run on continuously with the succeeding line. These must be by Beaumont. We have then, here, the characteristics of his style

unmixed with Fletcher's, which gives us the key we require. We can now separate their work.

It may seem strange that, since Weber had rightly apportioned these plays to our authors, characteristics so salient should never have led any critic to assign the other plays rightly. This, I think, may be explained. There is an inveterate habit among editors to read their authors too much in the order in which the old editions were printed. I can, in many recent issues of great value, trace the mischief and inaccuracy that is still produced by this cause, and in none more than in Dyce's "Beaumont and Fletcher."

The Woman Hater was first published in Quarto, and was undoubtedly the earliest of these plays that has reached us. Therefore Dyce studies it first; finds it to be almost or entirely by one author; finds, moreover, that it was first published in the name of Fletcher only, and concludes that it was mainly by him. Hence he gets a false notion of Fletcher's style that invalidates all his conclusions as far as this first group is concerned. I doubt not that other editors have been similarly influenced; and for myself, I can say that the acceptance of this conclusion of Dyce's kept me two years from seeing the proper starting-point, namely, the plays written by Fletcher alone after Beaumont's death. As to the title-page of the Woman Hater, it does not stand alone. The first play published in the names of Beaumont and Fletcher jointly was The Scornful Lady, in 1616; but Cupid's Revenge was published in 1615 in Fletcher's name singly. The Woman Hater (1607), Knight of the Burning Pestle (1613), Maid's Tragedy (1619, 1622), and Thierry and Theodoret (1621), were published without authors' names. In 1648, Thierry and Theodoret and The Woman Hater were published in Fletcher's name singly; in 1649 both of them in the joint names of Beaumont and Fletcher, as Cupid's Revenge had already been in 1630. Now, that Cupid's Revenge and Thierry and Theodoret were joint works, all the editors admit. This one play, The Woman Hater, is treated differently by them; in opposition, I think, to the external evidence, and certainly to the internal. I must, however, before giving my theory on this group, call your attention to the following Table, which is similar to those already under our notice for the other groups.

....26 pp.

... 7 pp.

pp.

258

54

13

49

King and No King..

Honest Man's Fortune...

Act v. Sc. 1, 2, 3 ............

Other author (? Beaumont), Acts i., ii., iii.. iv... 28.

I have still to make a few remarks as to the points where I differ from Dyce. As to the authorship of the Captain, the difference is not important, as that play certainly is two-thirds Fletcher. Had Dyce not been misled by the Woman Hater in which Fletcher had no share, and had he been aware that Fletcher wrote no prose, he would not have made any mistake. The play of the Honest Man's Fortune is partly by Fletcher ; but that the other part is Beaumont's I am not sure it reads to me differently from his other works. Still I have not entirely examined this play, and prefer to leave the question open it may be Beaumont's; at any rate, only one act is Fletcher's.

Before concluding this paper I must again repeat that it is only preliminary. The matters I believe to be absolutely fixed in it by the application of metrical tests are, the part authorship of Massinger in the plays given in the table above; the relative amount of Beaumont's work; and the classification of these plays. If on these points I have not produced conviction, the fault lies in the narrow limits which I feel it right to impose on a first work of this kind; or more probably in defective manner of exposition. I am certain that no one can go through the detailed evidence in the way I have done and remain unconvinced. To produce conviction in others who can have set before them only part of the mass of statistics on this subject, is very difficult. In my next paper I hope to produce all the evidence in full as to one or two plays that have passed under Shakespeare's name. To do this for all the plays I have considered would require many volumes; but I hope the sample will be a fair one, and that my work will be judged from it.

TABLE OF QUARTO EDITIONS.

(FOR REFERENCE.)

Woman Hater, 1607 (n.n.); 1648 (F.); 1649 (B. and F.).
Faithful Shepherdess, no date (F.); 1629 (F.); 1634 (F.), &c.
Knight of Burning Pestle, 1613 (n.n.); 1635 (B. and F.).
Masque, no date (n. n.); ascribed to B. in Folio.