This is Jonson's manner, to whom, in the letter quoted above, Beaumont indeed acknowledges that he owed it. The Nice Valour was Beaumont's play: It is not demonstration, but it is a high degree of probability. But still the distinction of manner from Fletcher, in personizing the passions, and not drawing from real life, spoke of above, will not follow if Fletcher wrote The Woman-Hater, as the first edition in quarto of that play asserts; but the second contradicts it, and puts Beaumont's name first in the title-page, and claims its changes from the author's manuscript. The publisher of the second folio follows the second quarto, and makes it one of the plays referred to in Beaumont's verses. The prologue appears to be wrote by the author himself, speaks of himself in the singular number, and shews great confidence in the goodness of the play, and an utter contempt of twopenny gallery judges. Here Beaumont's hand therefore seemed visible. I therefore began to recollect which of the foregoing plays most resembled this, to see what light might be gained from them; the first that occurred was The Knight of the Burning Pestle, which is all burlesque sublime, as Lazarillo's character in The Woman-Hater is throughout. Here all the editions give the Knight to Beaumont and Fletcher; this therefore is clear, and the prologue of that play is in style and sentiments so exactly like that of The Woman-Hater, that the same hand undoubtedly drew both. Believing, therefore, that The Nice Valour was Beaumont's only, and that he had at least the greatest share of The Woman-Hater and The Knight of the Burning Pestle, I proceeded to other plays, and, first, to The Little French Lawyer, where La Writ runs fighting mad, just as Lazarillo had run eating mad, The Knight of the Burning Pestle romance mad, Chamont in The Nice Valour, honour mad, &c. This is what our old English writers often distinguish by the name of humour. The style too of La Writ, like Lazarillo's and the Knight's, is often the burlesque sublime. Here I found the prologue speaking of the authors in the plural number, i. e. Beaumont and Fletcher. There is a good deal of the same humour in The Scornful Lady, wrote by Beaumont and Fletcher, as all the quartos declare. The publishers of the General Dictionary, whose accuracy deserves the highest applause, have helped me to another play, The Martial Maid, in which Beaumont had a share, 2 The prologue which Seward speaks of is taken verbatim from a play of Lilly's, which certainly lessens the confidence we should wish to place in his discernment. "Fate, once again Bring me to thee, who canst make smooth and plain To acknowledge all I have to flow from thee. Does Jonson (who is said constantly to have consulted Beaumont, and to have paid the greatest de and Jonson's manner of characterising is very visible; an effeminate youth and a masculine young lady are both reformed by love, like Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, and Every Man out of his Humour. Wit without Money, and The Custom of the Country, which have Beaumont's name first in all the editions, have something of the same hand, particularly in Valentine's extravagant contempt of money, and do great honour to Beaumont, as both are excellent plays, and the first an incomparable one. Shirley supposes The Humorous Lieutenant to be one of the plays referred to by Beaumont's verses to Jonson; and the publisher of Beaumont's Poems, which came out about five years after Shirley's folio of our authors' plays, has wrote under that poem The Maid in the Mill. This, I suppose, was a marginal note of somebody who believed Beaumont to have been a joint author in that play: It seems highly probable that he was so in both these plays, as the Lieutenant and Bustapha are both strong caricatures, and much in Beaumont's manner. The False One mentions the authors in the plural number; and I believe Beaumont chiefly drew the character of Septimius, which gives name to the play; but whatever share he had in that play, it does him great honour. Cupid's Revenge, which all the editions ascribe to Beaumont and Fletcher, is only spoiled from being a very good tragedy by a ridiculous mixture of machinery; this play, The Noble Gentleman, and The Coxcomb, are all that remain which have any sort of external evidence, which I know, of Beaumont's being a joint author, and these I build nothing upon. There are two others that partake of his manner, which, for that reason only, I suspect,―The Spanish Curate, and The Laws of Candy; the latter of which extremely resembles the King and no King in its principal characters. But we need not rest upon mere conjectures, since Beaumont's share of The Maid's Tragedy, Philaster, and the King and no King, give him a full right to share equally with Fletcher the fame of a tragic poet; and Wit without ference to his judgment) does he, I say, treat him in his answer as a mere critic, and judge of others' works only? No, but as an eminent poet, whom he loved with a zeal enough to kindle a love to his Money, The Nice Valour, and The Little French Lawyer, raise his character equally high in comedy.-Seward. Mr Seward has been exceedingly elaborate in this disquisition; wherein, we apprehend, no one meets conviction, though the writer seems to be himself so perfectly satisfied both with the internal and external evidence. With respect to the first, each reader will judge for himself; in the second, he appears to be uncommonly erroneous. Seward speaks of the first quarto of The Woman-Hater; the first quarto he never saw. He says it was published several years after the death of both authors; it was published in the lifetime of both, in the year 1607. This copy is indeed very scarce; and had not Mr Garrick's invaluable library been as easy as most others are difficult of access, a perusal of that edition would not, perhaps, have been obtained. The first quarto was printed, as before observed, in 1607, without any author's name prefixed; but in Mr Garrick's copy has been wrote, by "John Fletcher," through which name a pen has been run, and "Francis Beamont" wrote over the line; even this interlineation appears to be very old. The second quarto appeared in 1648, the title whereof mentions Fletcher singly; and the third in 1649, which has both names. The third, however, seems to be merely the second, with a new title-page, and the additions of the auxiliary title, The Hungry Courtier, a Drama; and D'Avenant's prologue for the revival. Great stress is also laid by Seward on the situation of Beaumont's Letter to Jonson; but this situation is evidently a mere casualty of the press. To expedite the printing, the first folio was divided into eight different portions, as the printer's directory letters for the bookbinder, and the numeration of the pages, evince. The plays alloted for the third portion were, Chances, Loyal Subject, Laws of Candy, Lovers' Progress, Island Princess, Humorous Lieutenant, and Nice Valour: These not making perfect sheets, the editor, to avoid leaving a blank leaf in the body of the book, there inserted this letter; and hence, undoubtedly, originated the situation of the poem, which ought, did its title deserve attention, to have been placed at the end of the whole work; for, had any specification been intended, we should not memory, as long as poetry delights the understanding, or friendship warms the heart : "How do I love thee, Beaumont, and thy muse, How I do fear myself, that am not worth The least indulgent thought thy pen drops forth!” have had the vague expression, " two of the precedent," but "the two precedent comedies." Seward says, Shirley supposes the Humorous Lieutenant to be one of the plays referred to by the verses: Shirley thought nothing of the matter, knew nothing of the arrangement, did nothing but write the preface: It were unjust to believe he did more. It is not always easy to discover Seward's meaning; but he seems, however, to have distrusted Shirley's supposition, and to have relied on the subsequent editor, by saying the verses were "published at the end of the Nice Valour, and Woman Hater, in the second folio." This proves nothing; that editor continued them with the play to which he found them annexed. The title to these verses runs, "Mr Francis Beaumont's Letter to Ben Jonson, written before he and Mr Fletcher came to London, with two of the precedent Comedies, then not finished, which deferred their merry Meetings at the Mermaid." If this title and the situation afford proof of any kind, it will be directly opposite to Seward's opinion: First, as the title mentions "two of the precedent comedies," The Woman-Hater could not be one, having no place in the first folio. Secondly, Seward says, " Fletcher could not be with Beaumont;" but what says the title, "Written before he AND Master Fletcher came, &c." And, thirdly, if Beaumont AND Fletcher were together, Nice Valour and the Humorous Lieutenant must be looked on as joint productions. But, besides the title and situation failing to prove which the comedies were, the poem itself affords no proof that Beaumont was then writing any play at all. The words When these scenes are perfect, are all which can lead to such a supposition; and may we not understand those words to mean only, "When I change the scene," or, "when the time for my stay here is completed ?" with this sense of the word perfect every reader of old books must be acquainted. Whether this explanation is admitted or not, it at least seems clear that no such external evidence, as Seward supposes, is deducible from either the title or situation of the poem in question.-J. N. See the remainder of this Poem III. of the Commendatory Verses; see also the first of these poems by Beaumont himself, the close of which will sufficiently confirm both his vigour of imagination and sprightliness of humour. Having thus, we hope, dispersed the cloud that for ages has darkened Beaumont's fame, let it again shine in full lustre, Britanniæ sidus alterum et decus gemellum. And let us now examine the order and magnitude of this poetic constellation, and view the joint characters of Beaumont and Fletcher. These authors are in a direct mean between Shakspeare and Jonson; they do not reach the amazing rapidity and immortal flights of the former, but they soar with more ease and to nobler heights than the latter; they have less of the os magna sonans, the vivida vis animi, the noble enthusiasm, the muse of fire, the terrible graces of Shakspeare, but they have much more of all these than Jonson. On the other hand, in literature they much excel the former, and are excelled by the latter; and therefore they are more regular in their plots and more correct in their sentiments and diction than Shakspeare, but less so than Jonson. Thus far Beaumont and Fletcher are one; but, as hinted above, in this they differ; Beaumont studied and followed Jonson's manner, personized the passions, and drew Nature in her extremes; Fletcher followed Shakspeare and Nature in her usual dress (this distinction only holds with regard to their comic works, for in tragedies they all chiefly paint from real life.) Which of these In the present edition Jonson's poem is ranged among the commendatory poems in the place it occupies in the first folio; and the poem of Beaumont, alluded to by Seward, will be found prefixed to the Faithful Shepherdess, to which it refers, vol iv. p. 7. |