FOOTNOTES:
[180] To employ in this process of separation the characteristics of Fletcher's later dramatic technique as a criterion does not appear to me permissible. For these, however, the reader may consult Miss Hatcher's John Fletcher, A Study on Dramatic Method, and sections 15 and 16 of my essay on The Fellows and Followers of Shakespeare, Part Two, Rep. Eng. Com., Vol. III, now in press. The technique is more likely to change than the versification, the style, the mental habit. Its later characteristics may, some of them, have been derived from the association with Beaumont; or they may be of Fletcher's maturer development under different influences and conditions. It is fair to cite them as corroborative evidence in the process of separation, only when they are in continuance of Fletcher's earlier idiosyncrasy. I have, also, refrained from complicating the present discussion by analysis of the style of Massinger, for which see Fleay, N. S. S. Trans., 1874, Shakesp. Manual, 1876, Engl. Studien, 1885-1886, and Chron. Eng. Dram., 1891; Boyle, Engl. Studien, 1881-1887, and N. S. S. Trans., 1886; Macaulay, Francis Beaumont, 1883; Oliphant, Engl. Studien, 1890-1892; Thorndike, Infl. of B. and F., 1901; and section 16 of my essay mentioned above. There is no proof of Massinger's dramatic activity before July 1613, nor of his coöperation with Fletcher until after that date, i. e., after Beaumont's virtual cessation. He may have revised some of Beaumont's lines and scenes; but Beaumont's style is too well defined to be confused with that of Massinger or of any other reviser; or of an imitator, such as Field.
[181] See Thorndike, Infl. of B. and F., p. 85, for discussion and authorities.
[182] Chapter VI.
[183] It was not printed till 1618; but had been acted long before.
[184] II, 1, 2; III, 1, 3, 5; V, 3.
[185] IV, 5; V, 2, 4, 5.