No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
F. G. Fleay presented to the New Shakspere Society in 1874 his epoch-making paper On Metrical Tests as Applied to Dramatic Poetry. Many early investigations of authorship had been excellent, and some scholars looked askance at the utilization of cold statistics in literary criticism; but Fleay's methods, followed later by Boyle and others, have been vindicated. To Fleay and Boyle the fundamental idea of this paper, namely, that the work of the collaborating dramatists, Beaumont and Fletcher, and of Massinger and Shakespeare in the case of Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen, may be tested by a consideration of colloquial contractions or elisions in words used by the authors, must acknowledge inspiration. The test will involve the use of statistical tables of colloquialisms which bear some resemblance to the metrical tables of Fleay and Boyle.
1 R. B. McKerrow in the Variorum edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's works has noticed that Fletcher very frequently makes use of the colloquial form ye for you, but Massinger rarely (Vol. ii, p. 104). In this particular instance he finds that the test bears out other critics in their division of The Spanish Curate. Ashley H. Thorndike in his Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare (1901) proposed what he called the “em-them” test. In this work he finds that Fletcher uses the colloquial em for them in the great majority of cases, that Massinger uses not a single em so far as he has examined his works, and that Beaumont uses one form or the other indiscriminately. In an addendum to this monograph, however, Professor Thorndike withdraws arguments against the authorship of Massinger based on this test, after having examined original quartos of Massinger. He finds that modern editions do not follow the quartos, since Gifford in every case changes 'em to them, and the Mermaid text follows his lead. Professor Thorndike lets his test stand so far as other authors are concerned.
2 Eng. Stud., xxxi (1902), pp. 420 ff.
3 Modern editors show a tendency to spell the-contractions i'the, o'the, etc., and often to expand to th‘ and by th‘ into to the and by the. In comparing original folios and quartos with modern editions I have found only this one thoroughly systematic change of contractions.
4 Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, London, 1909, p. 120.
5 Ibid., pp. 120-1.
6 Ibid., p. 119.
7 See Table I for The Captain and Tables III and VI for The Spanish Curate by Fletcher and Massinger.
8 Fleay, Chronicle of the English Drama (1891), i, p. 195.
9 Boyle, Beaumont, Fletcher, and Massinger, Eng. Stud., v (1881), p. 78.
10 Oliphant, Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, Eng. Stud., xiv (1890), p. 93.
11 The counting is based on the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio, 1647.
12 Eng. Stud., v, p. 84.
13 The basis for the counting is the Variorum, with the addition of Q, 1652, for Philaster.
14 The basis of the counting is as follows: Monsieur Thomas, B. and F. Folio, 1679; Beggar's Bush and Spanish Curate, Folio, 1647. Here and in other tables scenes apportioned to authors are those given with little disagreement by Fleay, Boyle, and others.
15 See Table VI.
16 Bullen, Old Plays, was used for counting in The City Nightcap.
17 Eng, Stud., xiv, p. 93.
page 347 note 1 Fleay, Life and Work of Shakespeare, London, 1886, p. 251.
page 347 note 2 Cambridge Hist. Eng. Lit. (1910), vi, ii, p. 137.
page 347 note 3 Boyle, Henry VIII, N. S. S. Trans., 1880-86, p. 445.
page 352 note 1 Chron. Eng. Dr., i, p. 190.
page 352 note 2 Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., vi, ii, p. 139.
page 352 note 3 N. S. S. Trans., 1880-86, p. 378.
page 352 note 4 Chron. Eng. Dr., I, p. 192.
page 352 note 5 Ibid., I, p. 190.
page 352 note 6 Q, 1634 as shown in C. F. Tucker Brooke, The Shakespeare Apocrypha, is the basis for the counting.