livers himself more in detail as follows: The whole of the first Act, and the first scene of the second, being the invention of Shakespeare, Fletcher is not even then suffered to go alone, but has the assistance of the same scene in Chaucer. So with the commencement of the next scene: in the continuation of which, however, he tries his invention for the first time, and finds the difficulty of being humorous. Two of the scenes which follow endeavour to carry out Shakespeare's view of the character of the Jailer's Daughter, and another gives a version of the meeting of Arcite and Theseus. The first scene of the third Act is by Shakespeare, which Fletcher follows in a similar scene (the third) in the same Act; and in the same way a scene by the former, showing the first approach to madness in the Jailer's Daughter, is followed by the latter in the fourth scene. The only original introduction by Fletcher hitherto is in the third scene of the second Act. The fifth scene of the third Act is a sort of continuation, with the addition of his sole attempt at character, a dull imitation of Holofernes. The sixth scene continues the subject of the third. The first scene of the fourth Act is again an original one of Fletcher's, — that is, it is not led to by a previous one of Shakespeare's. Yet, viewing the latter as the directing mind, we think the subject may have been suggested by him; the execution is any thing but original. So of the next; the concluding part of which runs parallel to Chaucer. In the last scene of this Act, Shakespeare gives another copy of madness for his associate to work by, and introduces a new character, the Doctor. This scene is again followed in the fifth Act by Fletcher, as we have pointed out. The rest of the fifth Act is by Shakespeare. In all that is essential to the plot, the other contributed nothing in which he was not assisted by a previous draught, either in his associate or in Chaucer." 66 More recently, Mr. F. G. Fleay has taken the matter in hand, and applied to it his figures and metrical tests. "This play," says he, has been already so conclusively shown to be a joint production of Shakespeare and Fletcher, and the portion written by each author has been so accurately assigned, that I should not have thought it necessary to re-open the question, were it not that every instance in which the results of critical examina tions based on different grounds can be obtained is valuable, not only as to the immediate end in view, but also as a test of the worth and power of the methods employed. So in this instance: if the examination as to authorship based on considerations of an æsthetic nature coincides with that based on metrical criticism, we shall have not only an enormously strong addition to the evidence of Fletcher's share in this work, but also a remarkable example of the value of metrical tests. "In this play there are two prose scenes, ii. 1, and iv. 3. Both these belong to the underplot. In my paper on Fletcher I have shown that Fletcher never wrote prose in any of his plays. I should therefore assign these two prose scenes in the The Two Noble Kinsmen to Shakespeare. Mr. Hickson has given strong reasons for the same course, on other considerations. "Looking next to the number of rhymes, we find no aid towards discriminating these authors. Except in the masque, there are only five in the whole play; two in the parts we assign to Shakespeare, three in the Fletcher parts. Not only does this agree with Fletcher's usual practice, but it enables us to say with confidence that Shakespeare's part of this play was written as late as 1610; as only in The Tempest and The Winter's Tale do we find that he had given up rhymes to any thing like such an extent as here." Mr. Fleay then proceeds to tabulate the Shakespeare and Fletcher portions, each by itself, and bases his conclusion on the relative number of double endings and of incomplete lines of four measures, which he says are “ the most important metrical means of distinguishing between these writers." Of course the two prose scenes, which he holds to be Shakespeare's, do not enter into his computation. In the Shakespeare portion, the whole number of lines is 1124; of double endings, 321; of four-measure lines, I. In the Fletcher portion, the whole number of lines is 1398: of double endings, 771; of four-measure lines, 19. He then adds the following: "It will be seen that the metrical evidence confirms the results of the higher criticism in the strongest manner. The average number of double endings in the Shakespeare parts is exactly that of the latter part of his career; the number in the Fletcher part exactly agrees with that deduced in my paper on Fletcher from all his undoubted works. Moreover, the imperfect fourmeasure lines occur in the Fletcher parts in the proportion of 19 to I in the Shakespeare parts. There is, therefore, not only the strongest confirmation of the conclusions of the best critics as to this play, but also the firmest ground for confidence in our metrical arguments." As implied in some of the forecited matter, The Two Noble Kinsmen was founded on The Knight's Tale of Chaucer. In the Shakespeare part, the borrowing is mainly in the form of hints and ideas; in the Fletcher parts, it is much more in the way of incidents and details. As regards the time of writing, I can add nothing to what has been said by Mr. Fleay. It appears that the work of the two authors holds about the same proportion in this play as in King Henry the Eighth. This, to be sure, need not infer that the two plays were written in immediate succession; yet I think it may lend some support to the belief that for a certain period the two authors worked together; nor can I perceive any marked differences of style in the Shakespeare portions of the two plays; such differences, I mean, as would infer any wide interval in the times of writing; though I should reckon The Two Noble Kinsmen to be somewhat the earlier of the two. And so the non-appearance of The Two Noble Kinsmen in the folio of 1623 may well have grown from an arrangement for dividing between the authors the fruit of their joint labours. It is considerable, also, that in this play, as in King Henry the Eighth, some of the scenes assigned to Fletcher, especially the second in the fourth Act, perhaps also the second in the second Act, and the sixth in the third Act, have passages rising so much above the usual plane of Fletcher's poetry as to suggest, at least, the presence of the master's correcting and improving hand. Certainly some parts of the scene first specified are beyond any thing that author has elsewhere given us. And in this instance, as in others, Fletcher's attempts at humour are exceedingly flat and futile; for, in truth, he had nothing of that choice and delectable element in his composition. Suffice it to add, that the portions ascribed to Fletcher are here distinguished by asterisks set before all the lines. Countrymen, Messengers, a Man personating Hymen, Boy, Executioner, Guard, and Attendants. Country Wenches, and Women personating Nymphs. SCENE.- Athens and the neighbourhood, except in part of the first Act, where it is Thebes and the neighbourhood. *PROLOGUE. *New plays and maidenheads are near akin; *More of the maid to sight than husband's pains. *We pray our play may be so; for I'm sure *It has a noble breeder and a pure, *A learned, and a poet never went *More famous yet 'twixt Po and silver Trent: *If we let fall the nobleness of this, *And the first sound this child hear be a hiss, *From me the witless chaff of such a writer *That blasts my bays, and my famed works makes lighter *Than Robin Hood! This is the fear we bring; *For, to say truth, it were an endless thing, *A little dull time from us we perceive [Flourish. Enter HYMEN with a torch burning; a Boy, in a white robe, before, singing and strewing flowers; after HYMEN, a Nymph, encompassed in her tresses, bearing a wheaten garland; then THESEUS, between two other Nymphs with |