THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN. FIRS IRST printed in 1634, with the following in the title-page: "THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN: Presented at the Blackfriars by the King's Majesty's Servants, with great applause. Written by the memorable Worthies of their time, Mr. JOHN FLETCHER and Mr. WILLIAM ShakespearE, Gentlemen." This was nine years after the death of Fletcher, and eighteen years after that of Shakespeare. The play was included in the third folio of Shakespeare, 1664, also in the folio of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1679. Its appearance with Shakespeare's name in 1634, and in the folio of 1664, is by no means decisive as to the authorship; for several plays were put forth as Shakespeare's during his lifetime, and also included in the same collection, which he most certainly had no hand in writing. On the other hand, however, in 1634 the popularity of Shakespeare had so far declined, or been eclipsed by later writers, as to leave little motive, apparently, for publishers to forge his name. There was also a strong and steady tradition of the play's having been written by Shakespeare and Fletcher in conjunction. But Shakespeare's participation in The Two Noble Kinsmen was not fully established till our own time, and the argument to that end proceeds mainly on internal evidence. In the first place, the play itself bears clear and unmistakable tokens of two widely-different hands; so much so as to put the ascribing of the whole to one and the same author quite out of the question. In the second place, in certain portions the cast of thought, the manner of expression, the mode of conceiving and unfolding character, in short, the whole texture and grain of the workmanship, are so totally diverse from the Fletcherian idiom, and so vastly beyond any thing else of Fletcher's known writing, that we are in effect forced to admit the presence of a far mightier 66 hand than his: and whose but Shakespeare's own sweet and cunning hand" can that be? In the third place, in proportion as the characteristics of thought and diction draw away from the Fletcherian idiom, in the same proportion they draw towards the Shakespearian, as we taste them in the acknowledged workmanship of Shakespeare's latest period. 66 Accordingly we find Coleridge saying, in 1833, "I have no doubt whatever that the first Act and the first scene of the second Act are Shakespeare's." Sidney Walker, also, declares that the whole of the first Act bears indisputable marks of Shakespeare's hand"; that in the first scene we have “surely aut Shakespearius aut Diabolus!" and that the first scene of the fifth Act "surely is Shakespeare's also." Mr. J. Spalding also, a very acute critic, writes that the whole of the first Act may be safely pronounced to be Shakespeare's "; that in the fifth Act we again feel the presence of the master of the spell"; and that " several passages in this portion are marked by as striking tokens of his art as any thing we read in Macbeth or Coriolanus." Last, not least, Dyce observes, “I believe that Shakespeare wrote all those portions of the play which Mr. Spalding assigns to him; though I conceive that in some places they may have been altered and interpolated by Fletcher." But the fullest and ablest discussion of the matter appeared in The Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review, April, 1847; from the pen of the late Mr. Samuel Hickson, the same judicious critic whom we met with in connection with King Henry the Eighth. Mr. Hickson's criticism is chiefly æsthetic in its scope and method, but works so near the core of the subject, that I have deemed it advisable to throw considerable portions of it into the form of foot-notes, and so print them in what seemed the most appropriate places. I must here, however, give one markworthy passage, which applies equally to all the verse parts of the play: "Of all the writers of blank-verse, Shakespeare is the most musical. His verses flow into each other with the most perfect harmony; never monotonous, but seldom rugged. His words seem rather to fall naturally into verse than to be measured out into lines; and his varied pauses break, without disjoining, the longest passages, so that none can be said to be long-winded, nor to add to their untiring effect. But Shakespeare, without feeling them a restraint, is always attentive to the laws of metre; he uses redundant syllables very sparely; and even the common license of double endings he resorts to but occasionally. On the other hand, the measure of Fletcher's verse is extremely peculiar: double and triple endings, and redundant syllables, may be said to form the character of his system; so much so that the line is frequently eked out with an expletive, after the verse is complete. The result of this is, that what was introduced for the sake of variety, and which has that effect when Shakespeare uses it, in Fletcher becomes excessively monotonous, giving something of a sing-song effect." 66 Mr. Hickson sums up the result of his inquiry as follows: The whole of the first Act, with the exception of some twenty or thirty lines, appears to be by Shakespeare; likewise the first scene of the second Act; the first and second scenes of the third Act; the last scene of the fourth Act; and, with the exception of the second scene, the whole of the fifth Act. As a consequence of this it follows, that, with the partial exception of Arcite, every character, even to the Doctor who makes his first appearance at the end of the fourth Act, was introduced by Shakespeare. We have here, then, not only the framework of the play, but the groundwork of every character: in each case we find that Shakespeare goes first, and Fletcher follows; and even then we find that the latter is most successful in the parts where he had Chaucer for a guide. With regard to the particular influence of Shakespeare upon the underplot, the same principle appears. The first appearance of the Jailer's Daughter, with the first signs of her love for Palamon, the first symptom of her madness, and the first opinion given by the Doctor, embodying a discriminating view of the case, with directions for its treatment, are all by him. Fletcher takes up the following scene to each of these instances, and unsuccessfully. And, indeed, excepting these three scenes, and one by Fletcher, (the first of the fourth Act,) the rest of the underplot is trash; want of observation and inexperience are evident in it throughout, and it is inconceivably dull." Touching the Fletcher portions of the play, Mr. Hickson de The worth that learnèd charity aye wears : For wicked Cleon and his wife, when fame Had spread their cursèd deed, and honour'd name That him and his they in his palace burn; The gods for murder seemed so content To punish them, although not done, but meant. New joy wait on you! Here our play has ending. 5 City as a collective noun, for the aggregate of citizens. [Exit. P. 12. The purchase is to make men glorious. — Steevens substituted purpose for purchase. Perhaps rightly. See foot-note 4. P. 12. This King unto him took a fere. - The old copies have Peere. No doubt a misprint for Pheere. P. 12. By custom, what they did begin Was with long use account no sin. In the first of these lines, the old copies have "But custom," and, in the second, account'd, accounted, and counted, for account. ACT I., SCENE I. P. 13. Bring in our daughter, clothed like a bride, For the embracements even of Jove himself. The old copies read "Musicke bring in," &c.; where no doubt a stage-direction crept into the text; Musicke being an order from Antiochus to have the music in readiness. I follow the arrangement of Dyce, who makes the music strike up when the Daughter enters. In the second line, the old copies omit the. P. 14. As from thence Sorrow were ever razed, and testy wrath Could never be in her mild company. The old copies read "Could never be her mild companion." The correction is Mr. P. A. Daniel's. P. 14. To compass such a boundless happiness! -The old copies have bondlesse. Corrected by Rowe. |