12 S. V. MARCH, 1919.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
61
of Shakespeare, Fletcher, and Theobald as
those for whose characteristics special
search is to be made.
Mr. Bradford was the first critic to note (or at least the first to announce the fact) that a new voice became audible in the third scene of Act III. ; and here let me remark that with Mr. Bradford's division of the play between the two original authors I am in almost complete agreement a fact which may be worthy of note, inasmuch as the result was not obtained by a mere checking of Mr. Bradford's work, but by an entirely independent examination, a com- parison being made only after I had obtained my own results and formed my own con- clusions.
According to these, there is no Fletcher in the play prior to III. iii., but thenceforward he is dominant. In that scene both Fletcher -and Theobald are detectable, but Theobald has revised only the first nine speeches, the remainder of his work being limited to the providing of a closing couplet. The opening part of IV. i. (to Julio's entry) is Fletcher's, either pure or as revised by Theobald ; and his too is that part of the scene lying between Violante's re-entry and the entry of Roderick, the conclusion being Theobald's. The next scene, as far as " And those to come shall sweetly sleep together," is wholly Fletcher's '(though not very characteristic of him), with the exception of the song, which must be Theobald's : none of the Elizabethans would have fathered it. The latter part of the scene shows Theobald patching Fletcher's work. We have more alteration of Fletcher in V. i. ; and we have the same writer and reviser present in the final scene from " Thou .art a right one," though as far as " Duke. Weep not, child," is untouched (but not particularly characteristic) Fletcher, while from " Leon. The righteous pow'rs at length have crown' d our loves," nothing of the original writer is left.
I may, I think, safely direct the attention of any one who knows Fletcher (bearing in mind that it is the Fletcher of the period of ' Two Noble Kinsmen ' and ' Henry VIII.' and ' Honest Man's Fortune,' and not the Fletcher of the period of ' Rule a Wife ') to such a passage as this from III. iii. : -She's stol'n away ; and whither gone I know not.
Cam. She has a fair blessing in being from you,
sir.
I was too poor a brother for your greatness : You must be grafted into noble stocks And have your titles rais'd. My state was
laughed at
And my alliance scorn'd. I 've lost a son too,J Which must not be put up so.
And this from IV. i. :
Mast. Have you learnt the whistle yet, and
when to fold,
And how to make the dog bring in the strayers ? Viol. Time, sir, will furnish me with all these
rules.
My will is able, but my knowledge weak, sir. Mast. That's a good child : why dost thou
blush, my boy ?
'Tis certainly a woman. [A side.] Speak, my boy. Viol. Heav'n ! how I tremble ! 'Tis unusual
to me
To find such kindness at a master's hand That am a poor boy, ev'ry way unable, Unless it be in pray'rs, to merit it. Besides, J'ye often heard old people say Too much indulgence makes boys rude and sawcy. Mast. Are you so cunning ? Viol. How his eyes shake fire
And measure ev'rj piece of youth about me !
[Aside.
The ewes want water, sir : shall I go drive 'em Down to the cisterns ? Shall I make haste,
sir?
'Would I were five miles from him! How he
gripes me ! [Aside.
Mast. Come, come, all this is not sufficient,
child,
To make a fool of me. This is a fine hand, A delicate fine hand never change colour : You understand me and a woman's hand.
And this from IV. ii. :
I cannot get this false man's memory
Out of my mind. You maidens that shall live
To hear my mournful tale when I am ashes,
Be wise, and to an oath no more give credit,
To tears, to vows (false both), or any thing
A man shall promise, than to clouds, that
now Bear such a pleasing shape, and now are
nothing ;
For they will cozen (if they may be cozen'd) The very gods they worship.
And finally this from V. i. :
And dare you lose these to be advocate
For such a brother, such a sinful brother,
Such an unfaithful, treacherous, brutal brother ?
Mr. Bradford has no hesitation about claiming Fletcher as one of the original writers of the play ; but he hesitates to name Shakespeare as the other. One can, however, unless I am mistaken, read between the lines that he is only deterred from doing so by that fear which most people have of venturing to run counter to the opinion of the many famous critics who have expressed their views on the Shake- speare canon. It needs even more courage to declare any play outside of the canon to be in any degree Shakespeare's than to question the authenticity of scenes in the canonical plays which the high Panjandrums of the Elizabethan drama have treated as indubitably genuine ; and, instead of blam- ing Mr. Bradford for his reticence, we may
