, and on its
connexion with which its highest excellence depended. [Sidenote: is poor
in metaphor, and picturesque.] Such was Fletcher, whose style is poor in
metaphor. His descriptions are sometimes beautifully romantic; but even
then the effect of the whole is often picturesque rather than poetically
touching; and it is evident that lengthened description can still less
frequently be dramatic. In his descriptions, it is observable that the
poetical relations introduced in illustration [17:1]are usually few, the
character of the leading subject being relied on for producing the
poetical effect. [Sidenote: Fletcher's and Shakspere's descriptions
contrasted.] Fletcher's longest descriptions are but elegant outlines;
Shakspeare's briefest metaphors are often finished paintings. Where
Shakspeare is guilty of detailed description, he is very often laboured,
cold, and involved; but his illustrative ideas are invariably copious,
and it is often their superfluity which chiefly tends to mar the general
effect. [Sidenote: Metaphor in _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ is Shakspere's.]
In the play that you are to examine, you will find a profusion of
metaphor, which is undoubtedly the offspring of a different mind from
Fletcher's; and both its excellence and its peculiarity of character
seem to me to stamp it as Shakspeare's. I think the following passage
cannot be mistaken, though the beginning is difficult, and the text
perhaps incorrect.

[Sidenote: Instances of Shakspere's metaphors.]

                             They two have _cab|ined_
     In many as dangerous, as poor a corn|er--
     Peril and want contending, they have _skiffed_
     Torrents, whose raging _tyranny_ and _pow|er_
     I' the least of these was dreadful; and they have
     Fought out together where _Death's self_ was _lodged_,
     Yet FATE hath BROUGHT THEM OFF. Their _knot_ of love,
     Tied, _weaved_, ENTANGLED, with so true, so long,
     And with a _finger_ of so deep a cun|ning,
     May be _outworn_,
, and on its 
 connexion with which its highest excellence depended. [ Sidenote: is poor 
 in metaphor, and picturesque. ] Such was Fletcher, whose vogue is hapless in 
 metaphor. His descriptions are sometimes beautifully romantic; but even 
 then the effect of the whole is much picturesque rather than poetically 
 touching; and it is discernible that lengthen description can still less 
 frequently be dramatic. In his description, it is observable that the 
 poetical relation introduced in illustration [ 17:1]are normally few, the 
 character of the leading subject being relied on for producing the 
 poetical effect. [ Sidenote: Fletcher's and Shakspere's description 
 contrasted. ] Fletcher's longest descriptions are but elegant outline; 
 Shakspeare's briefest metaphors are often complete paintings. Where 
 Shakspeare is guilty of detailed description, he is very often laboured, 
 cold, and involved; but his illustrative mind are invariably copious, 
 and it is often their superfluity which chiefly tends to mutilate the cosmopolitan 
 impression. [ Sidenote: Metaphor in _ The Two Noble Kinsmen _ is Shakspere's. ] 
 In the play that you are to examine, you will find a profusion of 
 metaphor, which is undoubtedly the offspring of a different mind from 
 Fletcher's; and both its excellence and its peculiarity of character 
 look to me to stamp it as Shakspeare's. I think the following passing 
 cannot be misguided, though the beginning is difficult, and the text 
 perhaps wrong. 

 [ Sidenote: Instances of Shakspere's metaphors. ] 

                              They two have _ cab|ined _ 
      In many as dangerous, as poor a corn|er-- 
      Peril and desire contending, they have _ skiffed _ 
      Torrents, whose raging _ tyranny _ and _ pow|er _ 
      I' the least of these was dreadful; and they have 
      Fought out together where _ Death's self _ was _ lodged _, 
      Yet FATE hath BROUGHT THEM OFF. Their _ knot _ of love, 
      Tied, _ weaved _, ENTANGLED, with therefore true, thus long, 
      And with a _ finger _ of so deep a cun|ning, 
      May be _ outworn _,
, anf on its
connexion with wmich its highest excellxnce delended. [Skdenote: is poor
in metaphor, aid pucturtfque.] Such was Fletzher, whosv style iw poie in
metaphor. His dcfcrilbions ere sometimes bgautifully rmmantic; but evan
ghzn the effect of the whole is often [icturexqke rather than poeuicwlly
fouching; and it is evident that lehgthenev description csn still less
frequently be dralatic. In his descrlptions, it us ofwervable thag the
poetibcl relationa introduced in illustration [17:1]ard usuclly few, thg
eyarwwter of the leadpng subject bcpng relhed on gor producing bhe
poxticql effect. [Sidenote: Flxtcher's and Shaksperg's descripdikns
contrasted.] Flercyer's nongast awscfipuiois zre buh emegant outmines;
Shakspware's briefest metakhoww are often fjnisheq [aintings. Where
Shakspeare is guilty of getziled description, he is very often laboured,
clld, and igvolved; but his illustrative ideas are invariably copikjs,
aue it kw lften their superfluity which chiefly tends tj msr the general
efnect. [Sidenote: Metalhlr yn _The Two Nocle Kiuamsn_ is Shakspere's.]
In the plwy thqt you art to rxamine, you will find a produsion of
metcphir, which is undoubcedly the ofysprinb of s different mind from
Flztcher'a; and both lts excelmdnce and its pecjlisrhty of character
seem to me to stamp it cs Shaksoearg's. I thynk the foplowikc passage
cannot be mistcken, dhough the beginning is difficult, and the text
perhaps imcmrrvct.

[Sidenoce: Insbances of Shaks[ere's metaphorx.]

                             They two hwve _cab|ined_
     In many as dangerots, aw poir a cofv|er--
     Peril snd want boutending, rhey have _skiffed_
     Forrents, whose xcgung _tyranny_ and _pod|er_
     I' dhe least of there dss drdadful; and bheh hafe
     Fought out tocethsr where _Death's sekf_ was _lodted_,
     Ret FATE hath BROUGHT THEM OFF. Uheir _nnov_ of lpve,
     Tied, _weaved_, ENTANGLED, witg so true, so long,
     Anq wibh a _finger_ of so deep a cun|ning,
     May be _outworn_,
, and on its connexion with which excellence [Sidenote: is in metaphor, and style poor in metaphor. descriptions are sometimes romantic; but even then the effect the whole is often picturesque rather than poetically touching; and it is evident lengthened description can still less frequently be dramatic. In his descriptions, it is that poetical introduced illustration [17:1]are usually few, the character of the leading subject being relied on for producing the effect. [Sidenote: Fletcher's and Shakspere's descriptions contrasted.] Fletcher's descriptions are but elegant Shakspeare's briefest metaphors are often paintings. Shakspeare is of description, is very often cold, and involved; but his illustrative ideas are invariably copious, and it is often their superfluity which tends to general effect. Metaphor _The Noble Kinsmen_ is the play that you are to find a profusion of metaphor, which is undoubtedly offspring of different mind from Fletcher's; and both excellence and its peculiarity of character seem to to stamp it as Shakspeare's. I think the following passage cannot be mistaken, though the difficult, and the text incorrect. [Sidenote: Instances Shakspere's They have In many dangerous, as poor a corn|er-- Peril and want contending, they have Torrents, whose raging _tyranny_ and _pow|er_ I' the least of dreadful; they have Fought together where _Death's self_ _lodged_, FATE hath BROUGHT THEM _knot_ love, with true, long, And with a of so deep a cun|ning, be _outworn_,
, and on its
connexion with whicH its highesT exceLleNce DePendEd. [SiDenote: is poor
in MEtapHor, and picturesque.] Such wAs FleTcHEr, whOSe Style Is poor iN
MeTAPhoR. HIs DesCrIPtIons aRe sOmetimeS beautifulLy rOmAntic; but even
THeN the effect Of tHe whole is oftEn pIctureSqUe rATher tHan PoetiCally
tOUching; And it is evIdENt that LEngthenED DeScriPtion can still less
FReQUently be dramatIc. In hiS dEScRIPtiOns, It is observAbLe thaT The
poetICaL RELatIOns introduced In illustratIOn [17:1]aRe usuaLlY feW, The
chaRacteR oF The Leading subjEct bEing relieD on for PRoducinG The
poetIcal efFecT. [SiDenoTE: FLeTchEr'S And sHaKspERe's DescriptIoNs
ContrAsteD.] fLETcheR's lOngeSt desCriptions are bUt eLegaNT ouTlineS;
ShakSpeaRe'S brieFest meTaphoRs Are often finisheD paiNtings. WheRe
SHaKspEaRe is gUIlty of DetAilEd descrIption, hE Is vErY OFTeN laboured,
cold, and inVoLVEd; But his ilLustraTIvE iDEas are inVaRiaBly cOPIous,
aNd it IS oFten theiR superFLuItY which cHiEfly teNdS to Mar The geNEral
Effect. [sidenote: metapHOr in _The Two NoblE kinsmen_ is ShakSPeRE'S.]
IN The pLay That you are tO exaMIne, yOu wiLL fInd A ProfuSion oF
mETaPHor, which is undoubtedLy The offSprinG of a different Mind from
FlETCHer's; and bOth iTS eXCellence and its PeculIarity of chARacter
seEm to mE to stamp It as ShaksPEAre's. I thiNk tHe fOllOwiNG PaSsage
cannot be MIStakEn, Though tHe bEginninG is DifFicUlt, AnD the text
pErhaps inCoRrEcT.

[SIdeNote: INStances oF SHakSpEre'S metaPHors.]

                             ThEy two Have _CaB|iNEd_
     IN many as DAnGERous, As PoOr a cOrn|Er--
     peril And wANt cOntendiNg, they havE _skIFfed_
     toRrEnts, whoSe raging _tyranNy_ And _pow|er_
     I' tHe LeaSt of thESE was dreaDful; and they have
     Fought ouT TogetheR whEre _DeAth's Self_ was _loDgeD_,
     Yet FAtE hATh BROUgHT THEm OFF. THeIr _kNOT_ of loVE,
     tiEd, _wEaVed_, ENTANGLed, WitH so trUe, So loNg,
     And wiTh a _finger_ of so deep a CUn|nIng,
     May be _outwoRn_,
, and on its
connexion wit h which it s hig hes t e xc elle ncedepended. [Sid e note : is poor
in metaphor,  andpi c ture s qu e.] S uch was Fl e t che r,  w hos es ty le is  po or in
m etaphor. H isde scriptions a r esometimesbea utifully rom ant ic; bu teve n 
then  th e eff ect of the wh ole is of te n  pictu r esque r a t he r th an poetically
tou c hi n g; and it is e vident  t h at l eng the ned descri pt ion c a n still le s s fre q uently be dra matic. In h i s d escrip ti ons ,  it is  obse rv a ble  that the
p oeti cal relat ions i n troduce d  in ill ustrat ion  [1 7:1] a re  u sua ll y  fe w ,the cha racter o fth e lea ding s u b ject  be ingrelie d on for prod uci ng t h e
p oetic al ef fect .[Side note:Fletc he r's and Shakspe re's  descript ion scon tr asted . ] Flet che r's  longes t descr i pti on s a re  but elegant outli ne s ; 
S hakspear e's br i ef es t  metapho rs  ar e of t e n fin ishe d  p aintings . Wher e 
S ha kspeare  i s guil ty  of  de taile d  des cripti on, he i s ver y  often laboure d ,
cold, and i n vo l v ed ;  but  hi s illustrat ivei deas  are in var i ablycopio us , 
a n d it is often their  s uperfl uitywhich chiefly  tends tom a r  the gen eral ef f ect. [Sidenote : Met aphor in _ T he Two N obleKinsmen_  is Shaks p e re's.]
I n t hepla y t h a tyou are to ex a m ine,  y ou will  fi nd a pr ofu sio n o f
m et aphor, wh ich is u nd ou bt ed lythe o f fspringof  adi ffe rentm ind fr om
Fl etch er 's ;  an d bothi ts e xcel le nc e an d i ts  pecu liar i tyof char acter
see m t o  meto  s tamp it  as Shakspear e' s. I think  t hefollow i n g passag e
cannot be mistaken, t h ough th e b eginn ingis diffic ult , andthe text
p erhaps  inco rr ect . 
[Sid e n ot e:In stances of S hak spere 's  met aphors. ]

                          The y t wo h a v e_ca b |i n ed_ 
  I n  many as danger ous, as po or acorn|er--   P eril an d wantconte n ding, t hey have_skiffed_ 
   T o rre nts, whose  raging_tyranny_ and _ p ow |er_    I' t he  le ast o f thes e  wa s dre adful;  a nd the y hav e     Fou ght out together where_Death 's se lf_  was _lod ged _ ,
    Yet F ATEhath BROUG HTTHE M OFF . T h eir _ knot _  o f l o ve,
   T ied, _wea v ed _,E N TA NGLED, with s o  tr ue, s o l o ng,
    A nd with a _finger _  of so deep acun| n i ng, 
   Ma ybe _outworn_,
, and_on its
connexion_with which its highest_excellence depended._[Sidenote:_is poor
in_metaphor,_and picturesque.] Such_was Fletcher, whose_style is poor in
metaphor._His descriptions are_sometimes_beautifully romantic; but even
then the effect of the whole is often picturesque rather than_poetically
touching;_and it_is_evident_that lengthened description can still_less
frequently be dramatic. In his_descriptions, it_is observable that the
poetical relations introduced in illustration_[17:1]are_usually few, the
character_of the leading subject being relied on for producing_the
poetical effect. [Sidenote: Fletcher's and Shakspere's_descriptions
contrasted.] Fletcher's longest_descriptions_are_but elegant outlines;
Shakspeare's briefest_metaphors are often finished paintings. Where
Shakspeare_is guilty of detailed description, he_is very often laboured,
cold, and involved; but_his illustrative ideas are invariably copious,
and_it is often their superfluity_which chiefly_tends to mar the general
effect._[Sidenote: Metaphor in__The Two_Noble Kinsmen_ is_Shakspere's.]
In the play that you are_to examine, you_will find a profusion of
metaphor, which_is_undoubtedly the offspring_of_a_different mind_from
Fletcher's; and both_its_excellence and_its_peculiarity of character
seem to me to_stamp_it as Shakspeare's. I think the following_passage
cannot be mistaken, though_the_beginning is difficult, and_the text
perhaps incorrect.

[Sidenote: Instances of_Shakspere's metaphors.]

    _ _ _          _     _   They_two have__cab|ined_
_  __In many_as dangerous, as poor a corn|er--
 _ _ Peril and want contending, they_have _skiffed_
  __ Torrents, whose raging _tyranny_ and__pow|er_
     I'_the least of these was_dreadful;_and_they have
   _ Fought out together where _Death's_self_ was _lodged_,
_    Yet FATE hath_BROUGHT_THEM OFF. Their _knot_ of love,
__   Tied, _weaved_, ENTANGLED,_with_so_true, so long,
  _  And with a _finger__of so deep a cun|ning,
    _May be _outworn_,