12 S. V. APRIT-, 1919.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
87
final scene in ' Cymbeline,' and that it is
accomplished by an entire departure from
the original story in ' Don Quixote ' ; and
we also have the interesting fact that, as in
- Henry VIII.' and ' Two Noble Kinsmen,'
Fletcher had nothing to do with the opening scenes.
I may say that I am in places reminded of Beaumont (in II. ii., III. iii., and V. ii.), but not so strongly as to warrant me in supposing him to have been concerned in the work. I may mention further that the name Violante occurs in Beaumont's ' Triumph of Love,' and that a Gerrard is one of the characters in ' Beggars' Bush,' of the original version of which I have else- where shown reason to believe that Beaumont was part author : in this play we have a Gerald introduced, and the Dorothea of the 'Cervantes story becomes Violante. So, too, Cardenio becomes Julio ; Luscinda, Leonora ; Ricardo, Angelo ; and Fernando (or Fer- dinando), Henriquez.
I feel that I must refer here to an article by another American, Prof. Rudolph Sche- -vill, in Modern Philology, in which he has sougjit to prove that Theobald took the story from a collection of novels published nearly two years later than the play, though I fail to see that he has made out any case. The one argument he adduces that seems to all for reply is that in which he urges that the names of the characters in the play must have been conceived in its original construc- tion, inasmuch as "it seems incredible that Theobald should have rewritten a play in verse to the extent of putting ' Julio ' for ' Cardenio,' and the like, in every verse in which one of the many names occurs." He thinks there can have been no reason for changing the names, but the fact remains '.that the names have been changed, and the only question is whether the change was made by the original author or authors or by the reviser and editor. There is no definite .evidence one way or the other ; but it is to be noted that where Fletcher's work has not been hacked about the names " Cardenio " and " Luscinda " can be substituted without detriment to the verse for " Julio " and "Leonora" (in III. iii. and IV. ii.). In other places " Cardenio " cannot be substi- tuted for " Julio," and only once (in V. ii.) can " Luscinda " replace " Leonora."
If we refuse to regard the play as origin- .ally Elizabethan and look on it as a shame- less forgery by Theobald, we are driven to consider that, though he knew nothing of ,a,ny supposition of a collaboration of Shake- .speare and Fletcher in a play on the subject,
he yet about midway through the play
abruptly changed his style and adopted what
is at least a remarkably good imitation of
the Fletcherian manner. Had he suspected
such collaboration, he might possibly have
done so ; but in the circumstances the
demand made upon us for an acceptance of
the theory of mere coincidence is altogether
too much. The weakness of Sir Sidney
Lee's supposition that " Theobald doubtless
took advantage of a tradition that Shake-
speare and Fletcher had combined to
dramatize the Cervantes theme " is that
there is no proof of such a tradition that,
in fact, there is the strongest reason for
saying that Theobald had never heard the
slightest hint of it. The play must there-
fore, I think, be regarded as genuinely based
on an Elizabethan drama and as containing
passages that were contained in the original,
and the early author of the latter portion of
it must on internal evidence be set down as
Fletcher.
But, if so much be granted, we are faced with the possibility that Fletcher's colla- borator, the original author of the earlier part of the play, was Shakespeare. Here two great stumbling-blocks stand in the way of the inquirer. The one is that dis- inclination (to which I have already referred) to see Shakespeare's work in anything outside of the recognized canon ; and the other is the fact that the work of this writer has been overwritten to a very much greater extent than has Fletcher's. Why is this the case ? Mr. Bradford's argument is sound when he says :
" The fact that Theobald's revision is much less evident in Fletcher's part of the play than in the other would be easily accounted for if he had in the one case to deal with the rugged, vigorous, difficult thought of Shakespeare's later period, in the other with Fletcher's fluent theatrical rhetoric, and if we remember that the revision was intended for the stage."
And let me finally, quoting Mr. Bradford's reply to a supposed contention that not even the greatest " labour and pains " of a Theobald could have obliterated Shake- speare so successfully, remark on " the extraordinary habits of rev* s ers generally which could make even so true a poet and so genuine a Shakespearian as D'avenant write, apparently with the idea that he was improving his model
Duncan is dead.
He after Life's short fever now sleeps well. Treason has done its worst ; nor steel, nor poison Nor foreign force, nor yet domestic malice Can touch him further."
There is, however, no need for British and probably no need for American, students
