"romantic comedy," if Beaumont and Fletcher "created" the type which
Professor Thorndike pronounces "romance"? He deliberately classifies
"Much Ado" and "Twelfth Night" as "romantic comedies." Is not
"Philaster" a "romantic comedy"? Then, as "Much Ado" was probably
written in 1599, "Twelfth Night" in 1598, when Beaumont was twelve or
thirteen and Fletcher twenty-two or twenty-three, it seems quite
"probable" that they were "influenced" in writing their "romances" by
Shakspere. If there is any fundamental difference between "romantic
comedy" and "romance," what is it? This is a difficult question, which
Professor Thorndike has attempted but failed to answer. He admits that
"Philaster" has some generic resemblance to "Measure for Measure," but
says that "No one would think of finding close resemblance between it
and anyone of the 'romances.'" If the resemblance is generic, does it
matter whether it is "close"? If "Measure for Measure" falls within the
laborious definition of a "romance," or of a "tragi-comedy," as both
that play and "Philaster" are called, why shouldn't we think of "Measure
for Measure," produced in 1604, four years before the wildest conjecture
puts the date of "Philaster," as the model upon which Beaumont and
Fletcher built?
"Measure for Measure" answers every detail of the definition: the plot
is taken from "Promos and Cassandra"; it is ingenious and improbable,
lacks realism, deals with heroic persons and actions, a sovereign duke
and his rascal brother; the characters are not historical; the location
is far off; the action has little to do with the real life of any
historical period; the story involves sentimental love, as distinctly
contrasted with sensual passion; there is variety of emotional effect;
the denouement is happy. If therefore the definition of "romance" is
correct, "Measure for Measure" is as much of that type as "Philaster";
Beaumont and Fletcher did not "create" it, and there is no reason for
supposing that Shakspere imitated them in "Cymbeline," "Tempest," or
"Winter's Tale."
But certain traits of construction are named as peculiar to the six
"romances" of Beaumont and Fletcher and those of Shakspere, and it is
sought to show that Beaumont and Fletcher set the fashion in these also.
1st. They did not observe the unities.
2nd. They disregarded the chronicle method.
3rd. They left out battles and armies.
4th. They presented a series of contrasted and interesting situations
leading up to a startling climax.
5th. The by-plots assist the main action.
6th. There is the use of tragi-comedy.
Does any attentive reader of Shakspere's comedies, whether called
romantic or tragi-comic, or by whatever other name, need to be told that
many of them contain all these traits? General review is impossible, but
take "The Merchant of Venice" as an illustration:
The unities are not observed. We think it is generally thought that
Shakspere was in the habit of disregarding them. The chronicle method is
ignored. We are not aware that Shakspere ever followed it except in
writing historical plays. Battles and armies are left out. This comedy,
like others by the same cunning hand, presents a series of contrasted
and interesting situations leading up to a startling climax. Need we
call to mind the rash contract of the merchant, and its almost tragic
result, the game of the caskets, the trial and defeat of the clamorous
Shylock? The by-plot assists the main action, else why does Jessica keep
house for Portia while she goes to play "A Daniel come to judgment"?
There is the use of tragi-comedy in the ruin of the merchant, in the
whetting of the Jew's knife for the heart of his assured victim. If
these "traits" characterize the "romances" of Beaumont and Fletcher,
they are possibly more likely to have been the "imitators," because
"Shylock" was created in 1596 or 1597, some years before "Philaster" was
exhibited as a stage decoration.
It is urged further that in the "romances" of Beaumont and Fletcher "the
characters are not individuals, but types," and that those types are
repeated until they became conventionalized. There is always a very bad
and a very good woman, a very generous and noble man and one so bad as
to seem a monster. There is the type of the "love-lorn maiden," of "the
lily-livered" hero, of the faithful friend, of the poltroon. It is
supposed by many that such types repeated in play after play do not mark
the highest original power, but rather poverty of invention, weak and
shadowy conception, indistinctness of coloring. Professor Thorndike,
however, cannot too much commend this style, because it gives such wide
scope for intense passion, startling situation, and successful stage
effect, and proceeds to seek for similar types in Shakspere's "romances"
as further proof that he "imitated" "Philaster." In his view, the
characters show "surprising loss of individuality." Imogen's character
"fails to supply really individual traits"; "Perdita and Miranda have
even less marks of individuality than Imogen." They are like Beaumont
and Fletcher's heroines who appear in the same stage costumes, wearing
the same masks, differing only in stage postures and dialogue. More than
this: Professor Thorndike would reduce the "creations" of Viola and
Rosalynd to the conventional type of the "love-lorn" maiden, to mere
adaptations for the stage, because they dressed in boy's clothes; of
Perdita, to an "imitation" of Lady Amelia in "Palamon and Arcyte"
because she gathered flowers prettily and was commended by the Queen. He
makes the surprising statement that the three heroines in "Cymbeline,"
the "Tempest" and "Winter's Tale" have on the stage "few qualities to
distinguish them from almost any of Beaumont and Fletcher's." It is
difficult to discuss such generalizations with the temperance of
criticism. They can be true only if Professor Thorndike's theory is
correct,--that the delineation of character is solely for stage effect.
There is another theory announced and recorded by Shakspere himself, and
illustrated in every drama he wrote,--that the sole end and aim of the
stage itself and of the characters it represents, is "to hold the mirror
up to nature," and therefore his characters are not "types"; they are
men and women who were born, not manufactured; each is a separate,
individual human being; each different from every other. We know them,
for they have entered our houses, sat at our tables, talked with us,
laughed and wept with us, made us shudder at crime and exult in the
triumph of virtue.
Therefore, there is but one "Lear": his madness was never imitated
outside of Bedlam; but one Lady Macbeth, and we have seen her walking in
her awful dream. Beaumont and Fletcher in six romances delineate
"love-lorn maidens," "conventionalized types," who differ little from
each other, except that three of them "masquerade in boy's clothing" and
three do not. They have "little individuality," "are utterly romantic,"
"utterly removed from life"; all are presented to produce novel
situations leading up to a startling climax.
Imogen is not like Miranda or Perdita; neither is a "type" of the
"love-lorn" maiden; all are living, acting individuals, differing from
each other like those we know, resembling each other only as one
beautiful and pure woman resembles another. Professor Thorndike, who is
the advocate of Beaumont and Fletcher, may keep his personal opinion
that Imogen lacks "individual traits," but we respectfully decline to
take his opinion as a critic that she is like Arethusa in "Philaster."
For us and for all men and women, Shakspere has _created_ the character
of Imogen, as of Perdita and Miranda, and her "individual traits" are
clear enough, to those who have had the happiness of her acquaintance,
to show that neither in feature or dress, neither in manners or morals,
did she "imitate" any of the heroines of Beaumont and Fletcher. But even
as a critic we must differ from Professor Thorndike; he accuses Miranda
of unpardonable indelicacy, and says she "proposed" to Ferdinand! He
gives her language from "Tempest," and remarks with satisfaction that it
sounds "very much like one of Beaumont and Fletcher's heroines," meaning
of course Arethusa, and so draws the obvious conclusion that Shakspere
in this remarkable instance clearly "imitated" the "creators" of the
"heroic romantic drama." The difficulty with this statement first of all
is, that it is not true: Miranda does not "propose" to Ferdinand; before
her sweet confession of love, Ferdinand had given all lovers the best
form of proposal ever spoken, in this language:
"I,
Beyond all limit of what else i' the world,
Do love, prize, honor you."
Arethusa does "propose" to Philaster, and therefore her "proposal" does
not "sound very much like" the proposal in "Tempest," or, if it does, it
tends strongly to show that Beaumont and Fletcher attempted an
"imitation" from "The Tempest." Professor Thorndike the critic has here
been misled by his zeal as the partisan: isn't it just possible that the
like zeal has misled him in the conclusion that "Cymbeline" was an
imitation of "Philaster"?
The second class of "types," as shown by the dramas of Beaumont and
Fletcher, is the "evil woman"--Evadne in the "Maid's Tragedy," Bacha in
"Cupid's Revenge," Megra in "Philaster," Brunhalt in "Thierry and
Theodoret" and Arane in "A King and No King." Professor Thorndike says
that "four of them brazenly confess adultery, and four attempt murder,"
and that "the resemblance ... is unmistakable ... and on the stage even
more than in print" these characters "must have seemed to all intents
identical."
The only parallel to this in Shakspere's "romances," as drawn by
Professor Thorndike, is that the "wicked Queen in 'Cymbeline' is very
like the wicked queens of Beaumont and Fletcher," and that "there are
other characters ... who show resemblances to Beaumont and Fletcher's
stock types." What the resemblances are we are not told, and we need not
inquire until we learn which "type" is the original, which the
"imitation." Meanwhile, we may rest upon the fact that, so far as queens
are concerned, there is no "stock type" in Shakspere; they differ from
each other as widely as Hamlet's mother from Imogen's mother-in-law. If
any of them resemble Beaumont and Fletcher's queens, it is clear that
Beaumont and Fletcher were the "imitators," not Shakspere.
Further similarities are suggested between the "type" of the "faithful
friend" as shown in five of Beaumont and Fletcher's "romances" and
Gonzalo in "Tempest," Camillo in "Winter's Tale," and Pisanio in
"Cymbeline." The "lily-livered heroes" and the "poltroons" are left out
of the laborious comparison, perhaps because none of either can be found
in Shakspere sufficiently like the original types in Beaumont and
Fletcher. The examples of the "faithful friend" are not happy. For
Gonzalo sets Prospero adrift in a crazy boat and Camillo betrays one
patron to save another.
Still following the assumption that "Philaster" was earlier than
"Cymbeline," we find Professor Thorndike asserting that "Cymbeline"
"shows a puzzling decadence" in style, "an increase in the proportion of
double endings," "a constant deliberate effort to conceal the metre";
"the verse constantly borders on prose"; "Shakspere's structure in
general is like Fletcher's, particularly in the use of parentheses and
contracted forms for 'it is,' 'he is,' 'I will.'" There is a "loss of
mastery" in "Cymbeline," "an apparently conscious and not quite
successful struggle to overcome the difficulties of the new structure."
An apologetic phrase that all this does not impute any "direct
imitation" of Fletcher does not redeem it from the imputation that
Shakspere was not content with copying Fletcher's plot, characters,
situations, but he deliberately departed, when "Philaster" met his eye,
from the methods he had used for more than twenty years, and carefully
copied the mannerisms of a contemporary who, according to established
chronology, had been known to the public hardly three years. The merits
of the charge, whether of direct or indirect imitation, must be
determined solely by the priority in date of the two plays. Meanwhile,
the critic's argument would have more force if he had told us how
"Cymbeline" shows a "puzzling decadence," how "the structure is like
Fletcher's," how the struggle to overcome the difficulty of its novelty
appears. As the argument stands it reminds one of Lowell's remark in
relation to this style of criticism: "Scarce one but was satisfied that
his ten finger tips were a sufficient key to those astronomic wonders of
poise and counterpoise ... in his metres; scarce one but thought he
could gauge like an ale-firkin that intuition whose edging shallows may
have been sounded, but whose abysses, stretching down amid the sunless
roots of Being and Consciousness, mock the plummet."
Professor Thorndike takes the further point, in his review of the Drama
from 1601 to 1611, that during that period "There are almost no romantic
tragi-comedies"; that in fact, including "Measure for Measure," there
are only five which offer the slightest generic resemblance to the
heroic tragi-comedies like "Philaster" and "Winter's Tale"; that when
"Philaster" appeared, there had been "no play for seven or eight years
at all resembling it"; and draws the conclusion that Shakspere, who had
been writing "gloomy tragedies" for several years, suddenly left that
style and wrote "Cymbeline" in imitation of "Philaster," because
"Philaster" had "filled the audience with surprise and delight." The
uncomplimentary and uncritical remark is added that perhaps "Timon" and
"Coriolanus" had not achieved great success on the stage--at any rate
the success of "Philaster" aroused his interest.
"Timon" is assigned by most critics to the last of Shakspere's life, by
many to the year 1612. "Cymbeline," as we have seen, was acted before
May 15th, 1611; it is therefore difficult to understand, if the date
assigned to "Timon" is correct, how its failure could have "influenced"
the production of "Cymbeline."
But Professor Thorndike's statement is incorrect. During the decade
named, "Measure for Measure" was acted at Court in 1604; his conjectural
date of "Philaster" is 1608. As we have shown, "Measure for Measure"
fully answers his definition of the "romance" or "heroic tragi-comedy,"
and he admits that it bears a generic resemblance to "Philaster." His
statement that for seven or eight years before "Philaster" "no play had
appeared at all resembling it" is therefore without support, and
contradicts his own admission. He assumes much more, and to support his
conclusion argues that "Philaster" was perhaps produced before 1608. The
importance of the point justifies deliberate attention. Against the
opinion of most scholars, against the express statement of Dryden, he
assigns "Pericles" to the year 1608; credits Shakspere with the
authorship of the "Marina story;" admits that "the plot is ... like
those of the romances, and particularly like that of the 'Winter's
Tale,' in dealing with a long series of tragic events leading to a happy
ending," but endeavors to escape the inevitable conclusion, by the
statement, utterly inconsistent with his own chronology, that, "if the
play was as late as 1608, there is a possibility of Beaumont and
Fletcher's influence just as in the romances."
"Pericles" contains a sentimental love story, the plot is like that of
the "romances," the variety of the emotional effects is similar, and
there is a contrast of tragic and idyllic elements. The play is founded
upon a "romantic story." All this is admitted, but Professor Thorndike
thinks the love story is not sufficiently prominent, the idyllic
elements are not treated as in the romances, and Marina is therefore not
like any of the heroines of Beaumont and Fletcher, but, while "something
like Portia, more like Isabella." And so "Pericles" is distinguished
from the romances because the "treatment" is "different," and finally,
because Professor Thorndike is committed to the theory that Beaumont and
Fletcher "created" a new type of drama, he asserts that "'Pericles' is
doubtless earlier than Shakspere's romances, but there is no probability
that it preceded all of Beaumont and Fletcher's." Dryden in his Prologue
to Davenant's "Circe" says: "Shakspere's own muse his Pericles first
bore," and the great weight of opinion is that it was a very early
production. The "Story of Marina" is as romantic as "Cymbeline," and is
of the same "type" as "Philaster," and therefore, if Dryden is right,
there is a strong probability that "Pericles" preceded all of Beaumont
and Fletcher's romances, and that in "Cymbeline" Shakspere did not
imitate them.
We come at last to the end of the argument. Professor Thorndike,
premising that the historical portion of "Cymbeline" and the exile of
Posthumous have no parallels in "Philaster," institutes a detailed
comparison between the plots, characters, and composition of the two
plays, and shows that they are so strikingly similar as to justify the
positive conclusion that "Shakspere influenced Beaumont and Fletcher or
that they influenced him." We may admit more than this: If "Cymbeline"
followed "Philaster," he was not only influenced by them, he not only
imitated them, he was a plagiarist; and no apologetic words that, upon
the assumption stated, "Cymbeline" did not owe a very large share of its
total effect to "Philaster," can make less the gravity of the charge,
and if the assumption is groundless or even probably groundless, no
excuse remains to the critic who makes it.
Let us see: After all his learned review of dramatic chronology, after
all his statements conveying the assurance that "Philaster" was the
original "type" of the "romance," Professor Thorndike says in so many
words, which for accuracy we quote: "Some such statement of the
influence of 'Philaster' on 'Cymbeline' could be adopted if we were
certain of our chronology. But the evidence for the priority of
'Philaster' is not conclusive, and its support cannot be confidently
relied upon. Leaving aside, then, the question of exact date, and only
premising the fact that both plays were written at about the same time,
we must face the questions,--which is more plausible, that Shakspere
influenced Beaumont and Fletcher or that they influenced him? Which on
its face is more likely to be the original, 'Cymbeline' or 'Philaster'?"
If "Cymbeline" was first written, then "Philaster" becomes not an
original but a copy, adaptation, imitation, plagiarism, if you will. The
similarities remain the same, the argument is reversed. We have shown
that the evidence is conclusive, in the opinion of the best critics,
that "Cymbeline" preceded "Philaster." Coleridge, Ulrici, Tieck and
Knight think that "this varied-woven romantic history had inspired the
poet in his youth" to attempt its adaptation to the stage; that having
had but a temporary appearance, Shakspere long afterwards, near the end
of his career, may have remodelled it, and Malone, Chalmers, and Drake
assign "Cymbeline" with "Macbeth" to 1605 or 1606. Our argument might be
safely put upon this point alone. Professor Thorndike's is placed solely
upon "plausibility" and "likelihood." To support it, he assumes again
the certainty of "the priority of Philaster"--which he had just admitted
to be uncertain--in order to show "the nature of Shakspere's
indebtedness," and then concludes from "the nature of the indebtedness,"
and from the fact that "Philaster" "was followed immediately by five
romances of the same style in plot and characters" "which mark
Fletcher's work for the next twenty years," that "these facts create a
strong presumption that 'Philaster' was the original," "a strong
presumption that 'Cymbeline' was the copy," and finally ends the
argument as it began, with these flattering words: "We may, indeed,
safely assert that Shakspere almost never invented dramatic types." And
this is the argument which Professor Wendell thinks "virtually proves
that several of their plays (Beaumont and Fletcher's romances) must have
been in existence decidedly before 'Cymbeline,' 'The Tempest' or
'Winter's Tale,'" "that the relation commonly thought to have existed
between them and Shakspere is precisely reversed."
Let us answer both Teacher and Pupil. Suppose, to follow the Thorndike
method, that "Cymbeline" appeared before "Philaster," that six romances
by Beaumont and Fletcher followed in rapid succession, while only two by
Shakspere appeared, but differing essentially from each other and from
"Philaster." Suppose that "Cymbeline" upon its first night "filled the
audience with surprise and delight," that Beaumont and Fletcher,
perceiving "its dramatic and poetic excellence," copied in "Philaster" a
portion of its plot and attempted to copy some of its characters and
situations. Suppose their experiment with this copy took the crowd by
storm--Isn't it reasonable to suppose that they would repeat the
profitable attempt as many times as the applause warranted? Isn't that
just what they did, repeating and imitating themselves over and over,
until Beaumont died? Does the number of repetitions and imitations
increase the "plausibility" or "likelihood" of the theory that
"Philaster" was the original of the type? If Shakspere found his gain
increasing by copying the fable, character, style, and denouement of
"Philaster," why did he not continue to copy in "The Tempest" and
"Winter's Tale," and why is it impossible for Professor Thorndike to
deny originality to either of these plays, except by his careless error
as to Miranda's "proposal" and the reference to Lady Amelia gathering
flowers at Oxford in 1566? Professor Thorndike's argument comes to this
and only this: If Shakspere wrote "Cymbeline" before Beaumont and
Fletcher wrote "Philaster," then Shakspere was the "creator of the
heroic romances." If the question of priority is doubtful, it is just as
impossible to prove the "plausibility" or "likelihood" of priority as it
is to prove the date. There is no proof, therefore, no presumption,
strong or weak, that "Cymbeline" was influenced by "Philaster" or was a
"copy" of it. But there is proof that Beaumont and Fletcher repeatedly
and habitually imitated Shakspere, and we cite it mostly from Professor
Thorndike's essay.
In "The Two Noble Kinsmen" there is a "distinct imitation of the
circumstances of Ophelia's madness and death in Hamlet." In "The Woman
Hater," assigned conjecturally to 1605 or 1606 by Professor Thorndike,
there are "several burlesque imitations of Hamlet."
In "The Knight of the Burning Pestle" (1607-1608) there are burlesque
imitations of passages in "Henry IV." and in "Romeo and Juliet."
In "Philaster" occurs this line:
"Mark but the King, how pale he looks with fear,"
--a distinct parody of the similar line in "Hamlet"; but it will be
remarked that Professor Thorndike calls it an "echo," not an imitation.
In "The Woman's Prize," improbably assigned to 1604, the whole play is
imitated from "The Taming of the Shrew,"--is in fact an attempted sequel
to it, and Professor Thorndike wanders from chronology to indulge a
sneer, by the remark that "The Woman's Prize" was "very well liked,"
the "Taming of the Shrew" only "liked." Possibly that was because then,
as now, some people preferred imitations.
In "The Woman's Prize," there is also a burlesque on "Hamlet" and a
parody on "King Lear." In "The Triumph of Death" these lines occur:--
"No, take him dead drunk now, without repentance,
His lechery enseamed upon him,"
and Professor Thorndike says "it sounds like a bit from an old revenge
play." It is a distinct imitation from "Hamlet" where the King is seen
at his prayers.
In the "Scornful Lady" there is one certain and one possible slur at
"Hamlet."
In "Cupid's Revenge" there is an imitation from "Antony and Cleopatra."
In "Philaster" Arethusa imitates Lear when he awakens from insanity to
consciousness.