Their other plays, though hardly less novel in character, and affording full opportunity for the authors' gifts of invention and language succeeded in captivating the public. These suc cessest the result of a constant attention to theatrical effectiveness, comprised two distinct classes of plays, the comedies and the heroic romances, both immediately popular and both of large influence on the later history of the drama.
Their comedy has its resemblances and con nections with preceding drama; but it is a dis tinct departure from Jonson's comedy of '"hu mours,') and it marks out a line of development that led to the plays of the Restoration. A lively plot, abounding in surprises, combines in a love story the manners of the day and the ex citements of romance, an overflowing wit and no morals. Its full development belongs to Fletcher's later years; 'The Scornful Lady' is perhaps the best rep,resentative of the col laboration.
The romances, sometimes tragic and some times tram-comic, also mark important innova tions. The period immediately preceding them had been distinguished by Shakespeare's trage dies, the prevalence of realistic comedy and the absence of sentimental or romantic comedy or tragi-comedy. The return to romance seems to have been established by 'Phi'aster,' and resulted in six plays that form the most dis tinctive product of the collaboration.
Other plays of the collaboration and many later written by Fletcher might be grouped with these; but the six plays, (Four Plays in One,' (Thierry and Theodoret,' (Phi!aster,' (The Maid's Tragedy,' (Cupid's Revenge,' (A King and No King,' serve to define the type, and re semble one another so closely in material, con struction, characterization and style that a single analysis will serve for all.
Their plots are usually original, and are ingenious complications of suspense and sur pnse. Like most preceding tragedies, they deal with royal or noble persons, foreign local ities, and the plots and passions that convulse kingdoms; but there are no battles or proces sions, and the action is mainly confined to the rooms of the palace or an adjoining forest. A story of gross sensual passion is usually con trasted with one of idyllic sentiment: and a great variety of incidents are designed to keep the interest at fever heat. A girl disg.uised as a page is stabbed by the man whom she loves; a wornan accused of adultery defies her ac cusers; the hero is saved from the tyrant by a timely insurrection— such idyllic or melodra matic material as this is skilfully constructed into a number of telling theatrical situations, leading through a series of surprises to start ling climaxes or catastrophes. In the ingenuity
of their structure even tnore than in the choice of their material, the romances marked a de parture from preceding plays. Their dramatis persorm 'belong to the impossible and romantic situations, and are usually of certain types,— the sentimental or violent hero; his faithful friend, a blunt outspoken soldier; the senti mental heroine, often disguised as a page that she may save the hero; the evil woman who malces most of the trouble; and the poltroon, usually a comic personage. With the addition of a king, some persons of the court and some from the lower ranks, the cast is complete. Even at their best such plays afford little that is valuable in the revelation of character or the criticism of life; yet the masterpieces of the class, (Philaster) and 'The Maid's Tragedy,' take almost if not quite the highest ranlc after Shakespeare, because of the slcill of their invention and the felicities and vigor of their poetry.
Both romances and comedies delighted their own age, and the young authors were quickly established among the poets of highest rank in both critical and popular estimation. There is evidence that their heroic plays suggested Shakespeare's change from tragedy to romance, and that (Philaster) led somewhat directly to (Cymbeline.' Certainly both comedies and ro mances were much imitated by dramatists of the next 30 years. Their freedom in versifica tion, their emphasis on stage situation rather than interpretation of character, their heedless ness of !morality, and their fondness for the abnormal and sensational, all led to the deca dence of the drama; but much of what is worthy as well as what is unworthy in the drama of the 17th century may be traced back to their initiative. They were ranked above Shakespeare and Jonson by their contemporaries, and their plays remained the favorites of the theatre dur ing the Restoration. By the beginning of the 18th century, pseudo-classicism brought them into disrepute with critics, and a chastened stage condemned their immorality. During the two centuries since they have never recovered their position on the stage, but numerous edi tions of their plays testify to their continued favor with the reading public.