Part ii

, B., F., Massinger_ (1874, _N. S. S. Trans._ 51, 23*, 61*, reprinted, 1876–8, with alterations in _Shakespeare Manual_, 151), _On the Chronology of the Plays of F. and Massinger_ (1886, _E. S._ ix. 12), and in _B. C._ (1891), i. 164; R. Boyle, _B., F., and Massinger_ (1882–7, _E. S._ v. 74, vii. 66, viii. 39, ix. 209, x. 383), _B., F., and Massinger_ (1886, _N. S. S. Trans._ 579), _Mr. Oliphant on B. and F._ (1892–3, _E. S._ xvii. 171, xviii. 292), _Daborne’s Share in the B. and F. Plays_ (1899, _E. S._ xxvi. 352); G. C. Macaulay, _F. B.: a Critical Study_ (1883), _B. and F._ (1910, _C. H._ vi. 107); E. H. C. Oliphant, _The Works of B. and F._ (1890–2, _E. S._ xiv. 53, xv. 321, xvi. 180); E. Koeppel, _Quellen-Studien zu den Dramen Ben Jonson’s, John Marston’s und B. und F.’s_ (1895, _Münchener Beiträge_, xi); C. E. Norton, _F. B.’s Letter to Ben Jonson_ (1896, _Harvard Studies and Notes_, v. 19); A. H. Thorndike, _The Influence of B. and F. on Shakspere_ (1901); O. L. Hatcher, _J. F.: a Study in Dramatic Method_ (1905); R. M. Alden, _Introduction to B.’s Plays_ (1910, _B. L._); C. M. Gayley, _F. B.: Dramatist_ (1914); W. E. Farnham, _Colloquial Contractions in B., F., Massinger and Shakespeare as a Test of Authorship_ (1916, _M. L. A._ xxxi. 326).

_Bibliographies_: A. C. Potter, _A Bibl. of B. and F._ (1890, _Harvard Bibl. Contributions_, 39); B. Leonhardt, _Litteratur über B. und F._ (1896, _Anglia_, xix. 36, 542).

_The Woman Hater, c. 1606_

_S. R._ 1607, May 20 (Buck). ‘A booke called “The Woman Hater” as it hath ben lately acted by the Children of Powles.’ _Eleazar Edgar and Robert Jackson_ (Arber, iii. 349). [A note ‘Sir George Buckes hand alsoe to it’.]

1607. The Woman Hater. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Children of Paules. _Sold by John Hodgets._ [Prologue in prose.]

1607. _R. R. sold by John Hodgets._ [A reissue.]

S. R. 1613, April 19. Transfer of Edgar’s share to John Hodgettes (Arber, iii. 521).

1648.... As it hath beene Acted by his Majesties Servants with great Applause. Written by John Fletcher Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._

1649. The Woman Hater, or the Hungry Courtier. A Comedy ... Written by Francis Beamont and John Fletcher, Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [A reissue. Prologue in verse, said by Fleay, i. 177, to be Davenant’s, and Epilogue, used also for _The Noble Gentleman_.]

Fleay, i. 177, and Gayley, 73, put the date in the spring of 1607, finding a reference in ‘a favourite on the sudden’ (I. iii) to the success of Robert Carr in taking the fancy of James at the tilt of 24 March 1607, to which Fleay adds that ‘another inundation’ (III. i) recalls a flood of 20 Jan. 1607. Neither argument is convincing, and it is not known that the Paul’s boys went on into 1607; they are last heard of in July 1606. The prologue expresses the author’s intention not to lose his ears, perhaps an allusion to Jonson’s and Chapman’s peril after _Eastward Ho!_ in 1605. Gayley notes in II. iii what certainly looks like a reminiscence of _Antony and Cleopatra_, IV. xiv. 51 and xv. 87, but it is no easier to be precise about the date of _Antony and Cleopatra_ than about that of _The Woman Hater_. The play is universally regarded as substantially Beaumont’s and the original prologue only speaks of a single author, but Davenant in 1649 evidently supposed it to be Fletcher’s, saying ‘full twenty yeares, he wore the bayes’. Boyle, Oliphant, Alden, and Gayley suggest among them III. i, ii; IV. ii; V. i, ii, v as scenes to which Fletcher or some other collaborator may have given touches.

_The Knight of the Burning Pestle. 1607_

1613. The Knight of the Burning Pestle. _For Walter Burre._ [Epistle to Robert Keysar, signed ‘W. B.’, Induction with Prologue, Epilogue.]

1635.... Full of Mirth and Delight. Written by Francis Beaumont and Iohn Fletcher, Gent. As it is now Acted by Her Maiesties Servants at the Private house in Drury Lane. _N. O. for I. S._ [Epistle to Readers, Prologue (from Lyly’s _Sapho and Phaon_).]

1635.... Francis Beamont....

_Editions_ by F. W. Moorman (1898, _T. D._), H. S. Murch (1908, _Yale Studies_, xxxiii), R. M. Alden (1910, _B. L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: R. Boyle, _B. and F.’s K. B. P._ (1889, _E. S._ xiii. 156); B. Leonhardt, _Ueber B. und F.’s K. B. P._ (1885, _Annaberg programme_), _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s K. B. P._ (1896, _Anglia_, xix. 509).

The Epistle tells us that the play was ‘in eight daies ... begot and borne’, ‘exposed to the wide world, who ... utterly reiected it’, preserved by Keysar and sent to Burre, who had ‘fostred it priuately in my bosome these two yeares’. The play ‘hopes his father will beget him a yonger brother’. Burre adds, ‘Perhaps it will be thought to bee of the race of Don Quixote: we both may confidently sweare, it is his elder aboue a yeare’. The references to the actors in the induction as boys and the known connexion of Keysar with the Queen’s Revels fix the company. The date is more difficult. It cannot be earlier than 1607, since the reference to a play at the Red Bull in which the Sophy of Persia christens a child (IV. i. 46) is to Day’s _Travels of Three English Brothers_ of that year. With other allusions, not in themselves conclusive, 1607 would agree well enough, notably with Ind. 8, ‘This seuen yeares there hath beene playes at this house’, for it was just seven years in the autumn of 1607 since Evans set up plays at the Blackfriars. The trouble is IV. i. 73, ‘Read the play of the _Foure Prentices of London_, where they tosse their pikes so’, for this implies that the _Four Prentices_ was not merely produced but in print, and the earliest extant edition is of 1615. It is, however, quite possible that the play may have been in print, even as far back as 1594 (cf. s.v. Heywood). Others put it, and with it the _K. B. P._, in 1610, in which case the production would have been at the Whitefriars, the history of which can only be traced back two or three years and not seven years before 1610. On the whole, I think the reference to _Don Quixote_ in the Epistle is in favour of 1607 rather than 1610. It is, of course, conceivable that Burre only meant to claim that the _K. B. P._ was a year older than Thomas Shelton’s translation of _Don Quixote_, which was entered in _S. R._ on 19 Jan. 1611 and published in 1612. Even this brings us back to the very beginning of 1610, and the boast would have been a fairly idle one, as Shelton states in his preface that the translation was actually made ‘some five or six yeares agoe’. Shelton’s editor, Mr. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, has shown that it was based on the Brussels edition of 1607. If we put it in 1608 and the _K. B. P._ in 1607 the year’s priority of the latter is preserved. Most certainly the _K. B. P._ was not prior to the Spanish _Don Quixote_ of 1605. Its dependence on Cervantes is not such as necessarily to imply that Beaumont had read the romance, but he had certainly heard of its general drift and of the particular episodes of the inn taken for a castle and the barber’s basin. Fleay, Boyle, Moorman, Murch, and Alden are inclined to assign to Fletcher some or all of the scenes in which Jasper and Luce and Humphrey take part; but Macaulay, Oliphant and Gayley regard the play, except perhaps for a touch or two, as wholly Beaumont’s. Certainly the Epistle suggests that the play had but one ‘father’.

_The Faithful Shepherdess. 1608–9_

N.D. The Faithfull Shepherdesse. By John Fletcher. _For R. Bonian and H. Walley._ [Commendatory verses by N. F. (‘Nath. Field’, Q_{2}), Fr. Beaumont, Ben Jonson, G. Chapman; Dedicatory verses to Sir Walter Aston, Sir William Skipwith, Sir Robert Townsend, all signed ‘John Fletcher’; Epistle to Reader, signed ‘John Fletcher’.]

_S. R._ 1628, Dec. 8. Transfer from Walley to R. Meighen (Arber, iv. 206).

1629.... newly corrected ... _T. C. for R. Meighen_.

1634.... Acted at Somerset House before the King and Queene on Twelfe night last, 1633. And divers times since with great applause at the Private House in Blacke-Friers, by his Majesties Servants.... _A. M. for Meighen._ [Verses to Joseph Taylor, signed ‘Shakerley Marmion’, and Prologue, both for the performance of 6 Jan. 1634.]

1656; 1665.

_Editions_ by F. W. Moorman (1897, _T. D._), W. W. Greg (1908, Bullen, iii), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).

Jonson told Drummond in the winter of 1618–19 (Laing, 17) that ‘Flesher and Beaumont, ten yeers since, hath written the Faithfull Shipheardesse, a Tragicomedie, well done’. This gives us the date 1608–9, which there is nothing to contradict. The undated Q_{1} may be put in 1609 or 1610, as Skipwith died on 3 May 1610 and the short partnership of the publishers is traceable from 22 Dec. 1608 to 14 Jan. 1610. It is, moreover, in Sir John Harington’s catalogue of his plays, which was made up in 1609 or 1610 (cf. ch. xxii). The presence of Field, Chapman, and Jonson amongst the verse-writers and the mentions in Beaumont’s verses of ‘the waxlights’ and of a boy dancing between the acts point to the Queen’s Revels as the producers. It is clear also from the verses that the play was damned, and that Fletcher alone, in spite of Drummond’s report, was the author. This is not doubted on internal grounds.

_The Woman’s Prize, or, The Tamer Tamed. 1604 <_

1647. The Womans Prize, or The Tamer Tam’d. A Comedy. [Part of F_{1}. Prologue and Epilogue.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}.]

Fleay, i. 198, Oliphant, and Thorndike, 70, accumulate inconclusive evidence bearing on the date, of which the most that can be said is that an answer to _The Taming of the Shrew_ would have more point the nearer it came to the date of the original, and that the references to the siege of Ostend in I. iii would be topical during or not long after that siege, which ended on 8 Sept. 1604. On the other hand, Gayley (_R. E. C._ iii, lxvi) calls attention to possible reminiscences of _Epicoene_ (_1609_) and _Alchemist_ (_1610_). I see no justification for supposing that a play written in 1605 would undergo revision, as has been suggested, in 1610–14. A revival by the King’s in 1633 got them into some trouble with Sir Henry Herbert, who claimed the right to purge even an old play of ‘oaths, prophaness, and ribaldrye’ (_Variorum_, iii. 208). Possibly the play is also _The Woman is too Hard for Him_, which the King’s took to Court on 26 Nov. 1621 (Murray, ii. 193). But the original writing was not necessarily for this company. There is general agreement in assigning the play to Fletcher alone.

_Philaster > 1610_

_S. R._ 1620, Jan. 10 (Taverner). ‘A Play Called Philaster.’ _Thomas Walkley_ (Arber, iii. 662).

1620. Phylaster, Or Loue lyes a Bleeding. Acted at the Globe by his Maiesties Seruants. Written by Francis Baymont and Iohn Fletcher. Gent. _For Thomas Walkley._

1622.... As it hath beene diuerse times Acted, at the Globe, and Blacke-friers, by his Maiesties Seruants.... The Second Impression, corrected, and amended. _For Thomas Walkley._ [Epistle to the Reader by Walkley. Different text of I. i; V. iv, v.]

1628. _A. M. for Richard Hawkins._ [Epistle by the Stationer to the Understanding Gentry.]

1634; 1639; 1652; N.D. [1663]; 1687.

_Editions_ by J. S. L. Strachey (1887, _Mermaid_, i), F. S. Boas (1898, _T. D._), P. A. Daniel (1904, _Variorum_, i), A. H. Thorndike (1906, _B. L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertations_: B. Leonhardt, _Über die Beziehungen von B. und F.’s P. zu Shakespeare’s Hamlet und Cymbeline_ (1885, _Anglia_, viii. 424) and _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s P._ (1896, _Anglia_, xix. 34).

The play is apparently referred to in John Davies of Hereford, _Scourge of Folly_ (_S. R._ 8 Oct. 1610), ep. 206:

_To the well deseruing_ M^r John Fletcher. _Loue lies ableeding_, if it should not proue Her vttmost art to shew why it doth loue. Thou being the _Subiect_ (now) It raignes vpon: Raign’st in _Arte_, _Iudgement_, and _Inuention_: _For this I loue thee: and can doe no lesse_ _For thine as faire, as faithfull_ Shepheardesse.

If so, the date 1608–10 is suggested, and I do not think that it is possible to be more precise. No trustworthy argument can be based with Gayley, 342, on the fact that Davies’s epigram follows that praising Ostler as ‘Roscius’ and ‘sole king of actors’; and I fear that the view of Thorndike, 65, that 1608 is a ‘probable’ conjecture is biased by a desire to assume priority to _Cymbeline_. There were two Court performances in the winter of 1612–13, and Fleay, i. 189, suggests that the versions of I. i and V. iv, v which appear in Q_{1} were made for these. The epistle to Q_{2} describes them as ‘dangerous and gaping wounds ... received in the first impression’. There is general agreement that most of the play, whether Davies knew it or not, is Beaumont’s. Most critics assign V. iii, iv and some the whole or parts of I. i, ii, II. ii, iv, and III. ii to Fletcher.

_The Coxcomb. 1608 < > 10_

1647. The Coxcomb. [Part of F_{1}. Prologue and Epilogue.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The Principal Actors were Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor, Giles Gary, Emanuel Read, Rich. Allen, Hugh Atawell, Robert Benfeild, Will Barcksted.’]

_Dissertation_: A. S. W. Rosenbach, _The Curious Impertinent in English Dramatic Literature_ (1902, _M. L. N._ xvii. 179).

The play was given at Court by the Queen’s Revels on 2 or 3 Nov. 1612. It passed, doubtless, through the Lady Elizabeth’s, to whom the actor-list probably belongs, to the King’s, who took it to Court on 5 March 1622 (Murray, ii. 193) and again on 17 Nov. 1636 (Cunningham, xxiv). There was thus more than one opportunity for the prologue, which speaks of the play as having a mixed reception at first, partly because of its length, then ‘long forgot’, and now revived and shortened. The original date may be between the issue in 1608 of Baudouin’s French translation of _The Curious Impertinent_ from _Don Quixote_, which in original or translation suggested its plot, and Jonson’s _Alchemist_ (1610), IV. vii. 39, ‘You are ... a Don Quixote. Or a Knight o’ the curious coxcombe’. The prologue refers to ‘makers’, and there is fair agreement in giving some or all of I. iv, vi, II. iv, III. iii, and V. ii to Beaumont and the rest to Fletcher. Fleay, Boyle, Oliphant, and Gayley think that there has been revision by a later writer, perhaps Massinger or W. Rowley.

_The Maid’s Tragedy > 1611_

_S. R._ 1619, April 28 (Buck). ‘A play Called The maides tragedy.’ _Higgenbotham and Constable_ (Arber, iii. 647).

1619. The Maides Tragedy. As it hath beene divers times Acted at the Blacke-friers by the King’s Maiesties Seruants. _For Francis Constable._

1622.... Newly perused, augmented, and inlarged, This second Impression. _For Francis Constable._

1630.... Written by Francis Beaumont, and Iohn Fletcher Gentlemen. The Third Impression, Reuised and Refined. _A. M. for Richard Hawkins._

1638; 1641; 1650 [1660?]; 1661.

_Editions_ by J. S. L. Strachey (1887, _Mermaid_, i), P. A. Daniel (1904, _Variorum_, i), A. H. Thorndike (1906, _B. L._), W. A. Neilson (1911, _C. E. D._).--_Dissertation_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten in B. und F.’s M. T._ (1900, _Anglia_, xxiii. 14).

The play must have been known by 31 Oct. 1611 when Buck named the _Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ (q.v.) after it, and it was given at Court during 1612–13. An inferior limit is not attainable and any date within _c._ 1608–11 is possible. Gayley, 349, asks us to accept the play as more mature than, and therefore later than, _Philaster_. Fleay, i. 192, thinks that the mask in I. ii was added after the floods in the winter of 1612, but you cannot bring Neptune into a mask without mention of floods. As to authorship there is some division of opinion, especially on II. ii and IV. iii; subject thereto, a balance of opinion gives I, II, III, IV. ii, iv and V. iv to Beaumont, and only IV. i and V. i, ii, iii to Fletcher.

An episode (I. ii) consists of a mask at the wedding of Amintor and Evadne, with an introductory dialogue between Calianax, Diagoras, who keeps the doors, and guests desiring admission. ‘The ladies are all placed above,’ says Diagoras, ‘save those that come in the King’s troop.’ Calianax has an ‘office’, evidently as Chamberlain. ‘He would run raging among them, and break a dozen wiser heads than his own in the twinkling of an eye.’

The maskers are Proteus and other sea-gods; the presenters Night, Cinthia, Neptune, Aeolus, Favonius, and other winds, who ‘rise’ or come ‘out of a rock’. There are two ‘measures’ between hymeneal songs, but no mention of taking out ladies.

In an earlier passage (I. i. 9) a poet says of masks, ‘They must 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 possible collaborators or revisers. The stationer speaks of a single ‘author’, meaning Fletcher, but says he was ‘not acquainted with him’. And the critics at least agree in finding both Beaumont and Fletcher, pretty well throughout.

_The Captain. 1609 < > 12_

1647. The Captain. [Part of F_{1}. Prologue and Epilogue.]

1679. The Captain. A Comedy. [Part of F_{2}.] ‘The principal Actors were, Richard Burbadge, Henry Condel, William Ostler, Alexander Cooke.’

The play was given by the King’s at Court during 1612–13, and presumably falls between that date and the admission of Ostler to the company in 1609. The 1679 print, by a confusion, gives the scene as ‘Venice, Spain’, but this hardly justifies the suggestion of Fleay, i. 195, that we have a version of Fletcher’s work altered for the Court by Barnes. He had formerly conjectured collaboration between Fletcher and Jonson (_E. S._ ix. 18). The prologue speaks of ‘the author’; Fleay thinks that the mention of ‘twelve pence’ as the price of a seat indicates a revival. Several critics find Massinger; Oliphant finds Rowley; and Boyle and Oliphant find Beaumont, as did Macaulay, 196, in 1883, but apparently not in 1910 (_C. H._ vi. 137).

_Two Noble Kinsmen. 1613_

_S. R._ 1634, April 8 (Herbert). ‘A Tragicomedy called the two noble kinsmen by John Fletcher and William Shakespeare.’ _John Waterson_ (Arber, iv. 316).

1634. The Two Noble Kinsmen: Presented at the Black-friers by the Kings Maiesties servants, with great applause: Written by the memorable Worthies of their time; Mr. John Fletcher, and Mr. William Shakspeare. Gent. _Tho. Cotes for Iohn Waterson._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

1679. [Part of F_{2} of Beaumont and Fletcher.]

_Editions_ by W. W. Skeat (1875), H. Littledale (1876–85, _N. S. S._), C. H. Herford (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._), and with _Works_ of Beaumont and Fletcher, _Sh. Apocrypha_, and sometimes _Works_ of Shakespeare.--_Dissertations_: W. Spalding, _A Letter on Sh.’s Authorship of T. N. K._ (1833; 1876, _N. S. S._); S. Hickson, _The Shares of Sh. and F. in T. N. K._ (1847, _Westminster Review_, xlvii. 59; 1874, _N. S. S. Trans._ 25*, with additions by F. G. Fleay and F. J. Furnivall); N. Delius, _Die angebliche Autorschaft des T. N. K._ (1878, _Jahrbuch_, xiii. 16); R. Boyle, _Sh. und die beiden edlen Vettern_ (1881, _E. S._ iv. 34), _On Massinger and T. N. K._ (1882, _N. S. S. Trans._ 371); T. Bierfreund, _Palamon og Arcite_ (1891); E. H. C. Oliphant (1892, _E. S._ xv. 323); B. Leuschner, _Über das Verhältniss von T. N. K. zu Chaucer’s Knightes Tale_ (1903, _Halle diss._); O. Petersen, _The T. N. K._ (1914, _Anglia_, xxxviii. 213); H. D. Sykes, _The T. N. K._ (1916, _M. L. R._ xi. 136); A. H. Cruickshank, _Massinger and T. N. K._ (1922).

The date of _T. N. K._ is fairly well fixed to 1613 by its adaptation of Beaumont’s wedding mask of Shrovetide in that year; there would be a confirmation in Jonson, _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), iv. 3,

_Quarlous._ Well my word is out of the _Arcadia_, then: _Argalus_.

_Win-wife._ And mine out of the play, _Palemon_;

did not the juxtaposition of the _Arcadia_ suggest that the allusion may be, not to the Palamon of _T. N. K._ but to the Palaemon of Daniel’s _The Queen’s Arcadia_ (1606). In spite of the evidence of the t.p. attempts have been made to substitute Beaumont, or, more persistently, Massinger, for Shakespeare as Fletcher’s collaborator. This question can only be discussed effectively in connexion with Shakespeare.

_The Honest Man’s Fortune. 1613_

[_MS._] _Dyce MS._ 9, formerly in Heber collection.

1647. The Honest Mans Fortune. [Part of F_{1}. After play, verses ‘Upon an Honest Mans Fortune. By M^r. John Fletcher’, beginning ‘You that can look through Heaven, and tell the Stars’.]

1679. The Honest Man’s Fortune. A Tragicomedie. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The principal actors were Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor, Rob. Benfield, Will Eglestone, Emanuel Read, Thomas Basse.’]

_Dissertation_: K. Richter, _H. M. F. und seine Quellen_ (1905, _Halle diss._).

On the fly-leaf of the MS. is ‘The Honest Man’s Fortune, Plaide in the yeare 1613’, and in another hand at the end of the text, ‘This Play, being an olde one, and the Originall lost was reallow’d by mee this 8 Febru. 1624. Att the intreaty of Mr. .’ The last word is torn off, but a third hand has added ‘Taylor’. The MS. contains some alterations, partly by the licenser, partly by the stage-manager or prompter. The latter include the names of three actors, ‘G[eorge] Ver[non]’, ‘J: R Cro’ and ‘G. Rick’. The ending of the last scene in the MS. differs from that of the Ff. The endorsement is confirmed by Herbert’s entry in his diary (_Variorum_, iii. 229), ‘For the King’s company. An olde play called The Honest Mans Fortune, the originall being lost, was re-allowed by mee at M^r. Taylor’s intreaty, and on condition to give mee a booke [The Arcadia], this 8 Februa. 1624.’ The actor-list suggests that the original performers were Lady Elizabeth’s men, after the Queen’s Revels had joined them in March 1613. Fleay, i. 196, suggests that this is the play by Fletcher, Field, Massinger, and Daborne which is the subject of some of Henslowe’s correspondence and was finally delivered on 5 Aug. 1613 (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 65, 90). Attempts to combine this indication with stylistic evidence have led the critics to some agreement that Fletcher is only responsible for V and that Massinger is to be found in III, and for the rest into a quagmire of conjecture amongst the names of Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, Field, Daborne, Tourneur, and Cartwright. The appended verses of the Ff. are not in the _Dyce MS._, but they are in _Addl. MS._ 25707, f. 66, and _Bodl. Rawlinson Poet. MS._ 160, f. 20, where they are ascribed to Fletcher, and in Beaumont’s _Poems_ (1653).

_Bonduca. 1609 < > 14_

1647. Bonduca, A Tragedy. [Part of F_{1}.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The Principal Actors were Richard Burbadge, Henry Condel, William Eglestone, Nich. Toolie, William Ostler, John Lowin, John Underwood, Richard Robinson.’]

_Dissertations_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s B._ (1898, _Anglia_, xx. 421) and _Bonduca_ (_E. S._ xiii. 36).

The actor-list is of the King’s men between 1609–11 or between 1613–14, as these are the only periods during which Ecclestone and Ostler can have played together. The authorship is generally regarded as substantially Fletcher’s; and the occasional use of rhyme in II. i and IV. iv hardly justifies Oliphant’s theory of an earlier version by Beaumont, or the ascription by Fleay and Macaulay of these scenes to Field, whose connexion with the King’s does not seem to antedate 1616.

_Monsieur Thomas. 1610 < > 16_

_S. R._ 1639, Jan. 22 (Wykes). ‘A Comedy called Monsieur Thomas, by master John Fletcher.’ _Waterson_ (Arber, iv. 451).

1639. Monsieur Thomas. A Comedy. Acted at the Private House in Blacke Fryers. The Author, Iohn Fletcher, Gent. _Thomas Harper for John Waterson._ [Epistle to Charles Cotton, signed ‘Richard Brome’ and commendatory verses by the same.]

N.D. [_c._ 1661]. Fathers Own Son. A Comedy. Formerly Acted at the Private House in Black Fryers; and now at the Theatre in Vere Street by His Majesties Servants. The Author John Fletcher Gent. _For Robert Crofts._ [Reissue with fresh t.p.]

_Edition_ by R. G. Martin (1912, Bullen, iv).--_Dissertations_: H. Guskar, _Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas und seine Quellen_ (1905, _Anglia_, xxviii. 397; xxix. 1); A. L. Stiefel, _Zur Quellenfrage von John Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas_ (1906, _E. S._ xxxvi. 238); O. L. Hatcher, _The Sources of Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas_ (1907, _Anglia_, xxx. 89).

The title-page printed at the time of the revival by the King’s men of the Restoration enables us to identify _Monsieur Thomas_ with the _Father’s Own Son_ of the Cockpit repertory in 1639, and like the other plays of the Beaumont and Fletcher series in that repertory it was probably written by 1616, and either for the Queen’s Revels or for the Lady Elizabeth’s. An allusion in II. iii. 104 to ‘all the feathers in the Friars’ might indicate production at Porter’s Hall in the Blackfriars about that year. The play cannot be earlier than its source,