Is there any possibility that Beaumont might be the author for whom we are seeking? That the general effect of these scenes is no more like Beaumont than it is like Massinger should be apparent to anyone who looks at them. If they were written in Beaumont's characteristic manner, the question would have been settled long ago; it would have been strange indeed if he had not been considered by scores of critics before now. Only a few have thought it worth while to bring his name into the discussion; but since Beaumont is "the subject of my story," these few references should be given.

Hazlitt and George Colman (the elder) mentioned Beaumont and Fletcher simply because they were rejecting Fletcher and Shakespeare. Spalding, ten years after his elaborate statement of Shakespeare's claim, found "a close likeness to the more elevated works" of Beaumont and Fletcher and remarked that "there is no evidence entitling us peremptorily to assert that Fletcher was concerned in the work to the exclusion of Beaumont." Furnivall said: "If it could be shown that Beaumont or any other author wrote the supposed Shakespeare parts, and that Shakespeare touched them up, that theory would suit me best." Littledale thought it "by no means improbable that Beaumont has lent Fletcher a hand in some scenes. In 1891 Bierfreund wrote a dissertation (in Danish) assigning the piece to Beaumont and Fletcher. This dissertation is a vigorous attempt to disprove the Shakespearean authorship of any part of The Two Noble Kinsmen; but it contains no analysis of Beaumont's style, nor any attempt to show that the in The Bondman does not show the contrast I have made. One might contend that Palamon's "I Have never been foul-mouth'd against thy law, Ne'er reveal'd secret ." is an expansion of his statement later in the speech that he was no companion to those that prate, and that he was not foulmouthed. This does not sound like the redundancy and repetition of the original poet. I have no objection to the theory that Massinger may have made some alterations in the piece at a later date, and that certain of the parallels might be accounted for in this manner. Mr. Lawrence has shown excellent reasons (Times, July 14, 1921) for believing that the quarto was set from a prompt copy used about 1627, and that some revision usually accompanied such revivals. One of Mr. Sykes' most notable parallels comes from a scene in The Honest Man's Fortune which is usually attributed to Beaumont. It has his way of bringing in unexpected rhymes and of dropping into prose as readily as Silas Wegg would drop into poetry, which Massinger does not do. Setting aside those I have now mentioned, and those that may be explained as due to conventional usage, even the critics who "believe" in parallels need not be concerned over Massinger's showing.

portions which are not Fletcher's are characteristic of Beaumont. Fleay in his third and final venture says, "If Beaumont did not write it, it is beyond the reach of anyone else but Shakespeare," and Shakespeare he regards as out of the running. This brings us down to the present and to Mr. Cruickshank again. Following out a suggestion in his book (p. 94) he writes in the (London) Times Literary Supplement, August 11, 1921:

"I suggest as a possible solution that Shakespeare was responsible for a part of the play, and that his materials were handed over to Beaumont and Fletcher to make what they could out of them. Many scholars have felt that, much as the 'non-Fletcherian' parts of the play resemble Shakespeare, they do not ring quite true. The explanation might be that the passages in question were written by Beaumont, who alone of the dramatists of the period was capable of writing in the style of Shakespeare."

To this Mr. Sykes answers, the following week:

"If Beaumont is to be put forward as a claimant to the part-authorship of The Two Noble Kinsmen, we are entitled to something more substantial to support his claim than the mere assertion that 'there is much in the play that reminds us of him.' Beaumont has many rhetorical peculiarities and a vocabulary so distinctive that it should be possible to detect it if any part of the play is his."'

We are indeed entitled to "something more substantial, hasten over the parallels that have been noted. By Dyce: Carve her, drink to her, and still among intermingle your petition of grace and acceptance into her favor.

IV,

iii.

Remedy of Love.

Drink to him, carve him, give him compliment. Fleay says this is, to him, "very strong evidence. . . This use of 'carve' is not common." By Oliphant:

But II, vi, is clearly Fletcher's. By Littledale:

Extremity, that sharpens sundry wits,

When most I need it, dulls the edge of mine. Honest Man's Fortune.

And in this instance, the authorship of the scene in the Honest Man's Fortune is disputed. Several critics have noted:

Her twinning cherries shall their sweetness fall.

I, i

Philaster.

Oh, they are two twinn'd cherries dyed in blushes. The expression was very likely more or less in vogue. Upon these, or whatever parallels might be found if searched for, I base no argument.

The matter of the masque, however, is of a wholly different sort. Littledale, Thorndike, Lawrence, and others have noticed that the "anti-masque" and May-dance in III, v, were taken almost bodily out of Beaumont's Masque of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn, and that this fact practically establishes the date of our play, 1613. But we know from his own notes on the court performance that Beaumont was immensely proud of the effect his anti-masque produced; and that it was he who adapted it for the new stage play at Blackfriars', and not Fletcher who appropriated it, is simply the normal conjecture. Moreover, the scene in which it is included yields itself on analysis as Beaumont's, though Fletcher must have revised the dialogue in which the Jailer's daughter joins. It runs to extravagance and a Beaumontesque humor throughout; some have seen a burlesque of Holofernes in the schoolmaster; it contains some of Beaumont's special tricks of style; the double ending couplets are in the manner of The Knight of the Burning Pestle. This scene must be added, therefore, to the "non-Fletcherian" scenes in looking for our evidences of Beaumont.

For the rest, there is a fairly general agreement, except as to the brief scene, I, v, and the two prose scenes. I, v, is frequently left unassigned, and here the introduction of Beaumont's name should surely be welcome. The song is like him; four of the six lines of the dialogue are rhymed; the sentiment of the concluding couplet would appeal to him. The prose scenes suggest Beaumont. Massinger was scrupulous in his avoidance of prose, and Fletcher used none in the plays he wrote alone or with Massinger. Though I think that some of the prose in plays which Beaumont and Fletcher wrote together may be the latter's, 12 we are all agreed that most of it is Beaumont's; and if The Two Noble Kinsmen had been taken as their joint work, these prose scenes would have been put down 12 Philaster, IV, i, for example

as Beaumont's and no question made of them. They read very much in his usual style.13

We are to look, then, for our evidences of Beaumont at I; II, i; III, i, ii, and v; IV, iii; and V, i, iii, and iv.14 It will be a fair method, I think, to check up in these scenes Beaumont's characteristics as given by Professor Gayley."

(1) Frequent use of the enclitics 'do' and 'did.' Sometimes determinative in verse as well as in prose. I have noted twenty-six instances; but this is not too great a number for either Shakespeare or Massinger.

(2) Ironical repetition of a speaker's words. This is very characteristic of Beaumont as it is of Massinger also; but the only instance of it in this drama is clearly Fletcher's.

(3) Dramatic repetition of what one "cries." I cry Amen to't (I, iv); And then cries "rare!" (III, v); One cries, "Oh, this smoke!" another, "this fire!" one cries "Oh, that ever.. (IV, iii).

(4) Stock words and phrases. Infect, loathed, mortal:

Take th' offence

Of mortal loathsomeness from the blest eye
Of holy Phoebus, but infects the winds

(I, i)

loathes (I, iii): loathsome (V. iv); mortal herd (I, iv); mortal bosoms (V, i); mortal millions (V, iii). Leprosy: One would marry a leprous witch to be rid on't (IV, iii). Garlands (several

13 They contain his use of the auxiliary do: "I do think they have patience" (II, i); ́ ́I did think so, too" (IV, iii). They illustrate what Oliphant notes as a particular characteristic of Beaumont's prose, the omission of small words, such as prepositions and conjunctions: "I am given out to be better lined than report is a true speaker" (II, i); She is continually in a harmless distemper; sleeps little; altogether without appetite, save often drinking; dreaming of another world and a better; and what broken piece of matter soe'er she's about, the name Palamon lards it; that she farces every business withal, fits it to every question" (IV, iii). The scenes could not be Fletcher's because of the fundamental difference in the treatment of the Doctor; and scarcely Shakespeare's, who does not imitate himself so feebly as in, "I think she has a perturbed mind which I cannot minister to" (IV, iii). One should note also the "" 'carve her, drink to her," not as a parallel but as a matter of "distinctive vocabulary. Other evidences of Beaumont in these

scenes will be included in the general survey.

14 Some have seen traces of Fletcher in these scenes and of the second author in Fletcher's scenes. This has been disconcerting to the "Shakespeareans," who note that in Henry VIII the parts of each author are quite distinct. The presence of Beaumont would leave no difficulty here.

15 Beaumont the Dramatist, 281-299.

times in V). Crossed: Lest this match between's Be cross'd ere met (III, i). Acquaint: I was acquainted once with a time (I, iii). Instruments, for servants: Forth and levy our worthiest instruments (I, i). Frequent references to beasts: ravens, kites, crows, lion, bear, boar (I, i); apes, leeches (I, ii); lions (I, iv); wolf (three times), screech-owl (III, ii); boar, stag (III, v. I omit the features of the anti-masque); lions, tigers, snails (V, i). Piece, referring to human beings: Those best affections that the Heavens infuse In their best-temper'd pieces (I, iii); This is that scornful piece, that scurvy hilding (III, v). Kind of, as in "A kind of love:" Her kind of ill Gave me some sorrow (V, iii). Pluck, used metaphorically: I should pluck All ladies' scandal on me (I, i). Miseries, griefs (plural use), and personified sorrow: Let us be widows to our woes (I, i); For us and our distresses (I, i); When could Grief Cull forth as unpang'd Judgment can (I, i); Oh, Grief and Time, Fearful consumers, you will all devour (I, i); What beds our slain kings have! What griefs our beds (I, i); Show in generous terms your griefs (III, i); In me hath Grief slain Fear (III, ii). There are of course other words in Gayley's list which do not occur. Nearly half are included; we should not expect all of them to occur in less than half a play, only a part of which is to be claimed for Beaumont.

(5) Figures of speech. "His comparisons deal with elemental phenomena. stones, winds, flames, ice, snow, or they are reminiscential of country life."

...

And costliness of spirit look'd through him! it could