commend their King, and speak in praise Of the Assembly, bless the Bride and Bridegroom, In person of some God; th'are tyed to rules Of flattery'.
A King and No King. 1611
S. R. 1618, Aug. 7 (Buck). 'A play Called A king and noe kinge.' Blount (Arber, iii. 631). 1619. A King and no King. Acted at the Globe, by his Maiesties Seruants: Written by Francis Beamount and Iohn Flecher. For Thomas Walkley. [Epistle to Sir Henry Nevill, signed 'Thomas Walkley'.] 1625. . . . Acted at the Blacke-Fryars, by his Maiesties Seruants. And now the second time Printed, according to the true Copie. . . . For Thomas Walkley.
1631; 1639; 1655; 1661; 1676.
Editions by R. W. Bond (1904, Bullen, i), R. M. Alden (1910, B. L.).—Dissertation: B. Leonhardt, Die Text-Varianten von B.'s und F.'s A K. and No K. (1903, Anglia, xxvi. 313). This is a fixed point, both for date and authorship, in the history of the collaboration. Herbert records (Var. iii. 263) that it was 'allowed to be acted in 1611' by Sir George Buck. It was in fact acted at Court by the King's on 26 Dec. 1611 and again during 1612-13. A performance at Hampton Court on 10 Jan. 1637 is also upon record (Cunningham, xxv). The epistle, which tells us that the publisher received the play from Nevill, speaks of 'the authors' and of their 'future labours'; rather oddly, as Beaumont was dead. There is practical unanimity in assigning I, II, III, IV. iv, and V. ii, iv to Beaumont and IV. i, ii, iii and V. i, iii to Fletcher.
Cupid's Revenge > 1612
S. R. 1615, April 24 (Buck). 'A play called Cupid's revenge.' Josias Harrison (Arber, iii. 566). 1615. Cupid's Revenge. As it hath beene diuers times Acted by the Children of her Maiesties Reuels. By Iohn Fletcher. Thomas Creede for Josias Harrison. [Epistle by Printer to Reader.] 1630. . . . As it was often Acted (with great applause) by the Children of the Reuells. Written by Fran. Beaumont & Io. Fletcher. The second edition. For Thomas Jones.
1635. . . . The third Edition. A. M.
The play was given by the Queen's Revels at Court on 5 Jan. 1612, 1 Jan. 1613, and either 9 Jan. or 27 Feb. 1613. It was revived by the Lady Elizabeth's at Court on 28 Dec. 1624, and is in the Cockpit list of 1639. It cannot therefore be later than 1611-12, while no close inferior limit can be fixed. Fleay, i. 187, argues that it has been altered for Court, chiefly by turning a wicked king, queen, and prince into a duke, duchess, and marquis. I doubt if this implies revision as distinct from censorship, and in any case it does not, as Fleay suggests, imply the intervention of a reviser other than the original authors. The suggestion has led to chaos in the distribution of authorship, since various critics have introduced Daborne, Field, and Massinger as
