APPENDIX.

BEAUMONT AND THE FAITHFUL SHEPHERDESS.

I feel that I owe to the reader some statement of the reasons that have led me to believe the pastoral as much a partnership play as Philaster. The work was, indeed, published as the sole production of Fletcher; but, in the case of Beaumont, nonco-operation is not to be read from the absence of his name from the title-page. In considering this talented pair of dramatists, it should be remembered that Fletcher was the professional of the two, Beaumont the amateur. The latter lived to write: the former wrote to live. And, whatever the extent of Beaumont's labours in a joint production may have been, there can hardly be any question that, once the play was completed, it became the property of Fletcher, to whom all its profits would accrue. The fact that the Faithful Shepherdess Quarto contains three dedicatory verses by Fletcher, in conjunction with the omission of his friend's name from the title-page, is the sole reason for believing the pastoral to be Fletcher's unaided handiwork. On the other hand, there are some considerations that suggest that Beaumont was actively engaged upon it.

First-though this may not be so convincing to the reader as it is to me there is an appreciable number of repetitions, or, as I think, anticipations, of Julius Caesar in the Faithful Shepherdess. The same phenomenon is seen in the partnership plays, in scenes that are clearly of Beaumont's inditing. Next, we are told by Drummond, in his Conversations, that Jonson informed him that the play was written by "Fletcher and Beaumont." If Jonson had merely echoed the popular voice, his words would not have

207

C

carried much weight. But, since his statement differed from the current opinion of his time, it may be taken for granted that he was speaking from special knowledge. There is, of course, the possibility that Drummond may have reported Jonson's words incorrectly. And this is the view that Professor Gayley takes of the supposed mis-statement. Whether that authority examined the pastoral for marks of Beaumont, I do not know; but his position—that Beaumont was the author of by far the larger part, if not all, of the Knight of the Burning Pestle, and nothing whatever of the Faithful Shepherdess—seems to me illogical: there are too many points of contact between the two plays, despite the differences in theme and treatment.

Farther, as Fleay pointed out, some of the lines that Beaumont addressed to his friend, on the occasion of the play's publication, seem to suggest that the younger poet contributed something, at least, to the work. These are the lines: "These public things and I agree

So ill that, but to do a right to thee,

I had not been persuaded to have hurl'd

These few ill-spoken lines into the world."

What consideration, other than that mentioned by the poet, could have induced Beaumont to break silence but the fact that he was partly responsible for the badly-received piece? Moreover, while Fletcher's less close friends liberally praised the unfortunate effort-Jonson styled it "a glorified work to time"-Beaumont carefully refrained from eulogistic commendations. Why, indeed, but out of regard to the old saw, "Self-praise is no recommendation"? It should also be noted that the tone and arguments of Beaumont's lines are reproduced in the prose introduction to the Faithful Shepherdess, which, though signed "John Fletcher," I am convinced was drawn up by Beaumont. The passage has the quiet, subtle humour agreeable with Beaumont's literary reputation. And, while the younger poet has elsewhere-in the Woman Hater-seen fit to lecture his audience on the rules and principles

of dramatic art, preachings in such vein are not indulged in by Fletcher, who, in his prologues and epilogues, frequently disclaims any higher theatrical end than the shaping of "a tale well told." The writer of the lecture under discussion-the dramatist who takes himself so seriously-ought to be easily recognised as Beaumont. For the main complaint, both in the poet's verses and in the address to the reader, is of ignorance. It is probable also, if not quite certain, that a phrase in the piece of prose, "they are not to be adorned with any art," was written by the versifier of the line in the condoling letter:

"To be with so much wit and art adorned."

These considerations are of sufficient importance to prompt an examination of the text of the Faithful Shepherdess, in order to discover whether Jonson was rightly reported by Drummond. In this case, tests will not help us much. The verse of a partlyrhymed play must obviously be of a much more regular kind than that which usually fulfilled Fletcher's requirements. Nevertheless, the play is not entirely rhymed, and if the nature of the unrhymed verse-its regularity, its pauses, and the restraint and simplicity of its language-is to be taken into account, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the plea that Beaumont took, in the Faithful Shepherdess, the preponderating share it was his custom to assume in the plays in which he partnered Fletcher.

The unnecessary use of the verb "to do" must also be disregarded as a final test, since Fletcher may have dropped in an occasional "do," "doth," or "did," in order to force a rhyme. On the other hand, Beaumont may just as often have suppressed them to obtain a like result. If, however, this test is applied to the blank verse passages, it gives a slight reaction in Beaumont's favour. There is, finally, the "ye" "ye" test. This pronounced Fletcherism is not much in evidence here. It may be urged that the nature of the work did not admit of the use of it. I agree that this may be so, although I see no reason to support that

view. But the Fletcher habit in question does break out in one or two scenes, and it may well be asked why, except in these few scenes, the unbridled use of "ye" should be so carefully eschewed.

There remain to be considered the parallels and the style of the work generally. Parallels are not of much help in distinguishing the shares of these two poets in their plays. One cannot always tell whether one author is repeating his own or his partner's thoughts. In this connection, however, it may be affirmed that, while Beaumont did not largely copy Fletcher, the ideas of Beaumont continually recur in plays of Fletcher's sole authorship. The problem is farther complicated by the fact that the division of labour is not always clearly marked in the works that they wrote together. One did not take a certain number of acts or scenes for his own share, leaving the rest to the other. Sometimes, they seem to be playing a pretty game between them. One poet would take one character in a scene and be responsible for his (or her) utterances, while the other would furnish the replies. This was the case in Act iv. Sc. 1, of Cupid's Revenge, where, in the dialogue between Leucippus and Ismenus, the speeches of the hero are all by Beaumont, while the answers of the humorous captain-in the latter part of the scene—are entirely by Fletcher. Unless one can take notice of this kind of battledore and shuttlecock, one will not always perceive the full extent of Beaumont's share in the partnership plays. In all of the works undertaken conjointly by the two authors, there are scenes solely written by Beaumont. There are few, however, that are entirely by Fletcher. And it appears to me that the Faithful Shepherdess is no exception to this rule. The whole of Act III., I am inclined to think, is by Beaumont, while most of the scenes of the other acts have something of his work.

Such parallels as are now put before the reader must be judged with the reservation that they are not quite conclusive. If