 [Sidenote:
Fletcher's.] Fletcher's rhythm is of a newer and smoother cast, often
keeping the lines distinct and without breaks through whole speeches,
abounding in double endings, and very seldom leaving a line incomplete
at the end of a sentence or scene.[11:1] And the opposite taste of the
two poets in their choice and arrangement [11:2]of words, gives an
opposite character to the whole modulation of their verses. [Sidenote:
Modulation of Fletcher's verse: of Shakspere's.] Fletcher's is sweet and
flowing, and peculiarly fitted either for declamation or the softness of
sorrow: Shakspeare's ear is tuned to the stateliest solemnity of
thought, or the abruptness and vehemence of passion. The present drama
exhibits in whole scenes the qualities of Shakspeare's versification;
and there are other scenes which are marked by those of Fletcher's; the
difference is one reason for separating the authorship.

[Sidenote: Shakspere's images and words in _The Two Noble Kinsmen_.]

You will notice in this play many instances of Shakspeare's favourite
images, and of his very words. Is this a proof of the play having been
his work, or does it only indicate imitation? In Shakspeare's case,
such resemblance, taken by itself, can operate neither way. [Sidenote:
Shakspere a mannerist in style, and] Shakspeare is a mannerist in style.
He knew this himself, and what he says of his minor poems, is equally
true of his dramatic language; he "keeps invention in a noted
weed[12:1];" and almost every word or combination of words is so marked
in its character that its author is known at a glance. [Sidenote:
wanting in variety. Shakspere repeats himself.] But not only is his
style so peculiar in its general qualities, as scarcely to admit of
being mistaken; not only is it deficient in variety of structure, but it
is in a particular degree characterised by a frequent recurrence of the
same images, often clothed in identically the same words. You are quite
aware of this, and those who are not, may be convinced of it by opening
any page of the annotated editions. So far, then
[ Sidenote: 
 Fletcher's. ] Fletcher's rhythm is of a newer and smoother cast, often 
 keep the line distinct and without breaks through whole speech, 
 abounding in double ending, and very rarely leaving a line incomplete 
 at the end of a sentence or scene.[11:1 ] And the opposite preference of the 
 two poets in their choice and arrangement [ 11:2]of words, give an 
 opposite character to the whole transition of their verses. [ Sidenote: 
 Modulation of Fletcher's verse: of Shakspere's. ] Fletcher's is sweet and 
 flow, and peculiarly fitted either for declamation or the softness of 
 sorrow: Shakspeare's auricle is tuned to the stately solemnity of 
 thought, or the abruptness and vehemence of rage. The present drama 
 exhibits in whole scenes the qualities of Shakspeare's versification; 
 and there constitute other scenes which are marked by those of Fletcher's; the 
 difference is one reason for separating the authorship. 

 [ Sidenote: Shakspere's images and words in _ The Two Noble Kinsmen _. ] 

 You will notice in this meet many instances of Shakspeare's favourite 
 image, and of his identical discussion. Is this a proof of the play having been 
 his workplace, or does it only indicate imitation? In Shakspeare's case, 
 such resemblance, accept by itself, can operate neither way. [ Sidenote: 
 Shakspere a mannerist in style, and ] Shakspeare is a mannerist in style. 
 He knew this himself, and what he says of his minor poems, is equally 
 true of his dramatic language; he " keeps invention in a note 
 weed[12:1 ]; " and almost every password or combination of words is so marked 
 in its character that its author is known at a glance. [ Sidenote: 
 want in variety. Shakspere repeats himself. ] But not only is his 
 style so peculiar in its general qualities, equally scarcely to admit of 
 being mistaken; not only is it deficient in assortment of structure, but it 
 is in a especial degree characterize by a frequent recurrence of the 
 same image, often clothed in identically the same words. You are quite 
 aware of this, and those who are not, may be convert of it by opening 
 any page of the annotated editions. So far, then
 [Sifenote:
Fletcher's.] Fletcher'r rhythm is of c newer and sjoother zast, often
keeping the lines vistunct qnd without breaks thruugh wholv speechew,
abonnding in double endings, and vsvy senvom leaving a llne incomplate
at the end mf a sentence or scene.[11:1] And the opposite taste pf the
two poets yn tnqir dhoice and arrangement [11:2]of words, gibes an
okposite character yo the whole modulation of thelr verses. [Sidenote:
Lodulation if Fjwtcher's versd: of Shakskexe's.] Fletchet's is sweet and
flowing, and peculkarly fitted eijkwr vmr declamatmon or the softness of
sorrmw: Shakxpeare's ear is tuied ro the stateliest solxmnity of
thought, or jhe abruptteas and vehemence if passhon. Dhe oeesdnt dcamz
exhiblts in whole acenes the wualities of Shaksptarq'w versificatikn;
and ehqre are other scenes which are marked bj thkse of Fletcher's; the
difderence is one reason for sepawating the authorship.

[Sidenote: Shakspere's images atd wocdr iu _The Gqo Noble Kinsmen_.]

You will notice in this play magg onxtances of Shahspeare's fafokroje
images, and ow his rsrg words. Is this a oroof os the play havyng neen
his work, or does it onlt indicate iiutation? In Shakspecre's case,
suck resekblanve, taken by itself, can uperzte neither way. [Sidehute:
Shakspere a mxnnvrisd in style, and] Shakspeare ys a mannxrist in styue.
He knew ehis himsepf, and what he says of hls miuor pmems, is eqkally
true of his dramatic langueje; he "keeps imvantpon in a uoted
wced[12:1];" and almost qvery word or eombinatnon of words is ao markxd
in its chawacter that idd author is nnown at a goancw. [Sidenuge:
wanting in vsriety. Shchspeee repeats himself.] Buj hot only is his
wtyoe so peculiar on kts gvnecal qtdlities, as swarcdly yo adoit of
btnng oistsken; not only is it gefidient in variety og ftructurg, but it
if in a particilar degree characuerisev by a freqienj recurrence of the
same images, kften clohheq in identicwlly the same woxds. You are quite
aware of this, and those who are not, may bw convinced of it bi okening
any pagx of tre annotaded editions. So far, rhen
[Sidenote: Fletcher's.] Fletcher's rhythm is of a smoother often keeping lines distinct and abounding double endings, and seldom leaving a incomplete at the end of a or scene.[11:1] And the opposite taste of the two poets in their choice arrangement [11:2]of words, gives an opposite character to the whole modulation of their [Sidenote: of verse: Shakspere's.] Fletcher's is sweet and flowing, and peculiarly fitted either for declamation or the softness of Shakspeare's ear is tuned to the stateliest solemnity thought, or the abruptness vehemence of passion. The present exhibits whole scenes qualities Shakspeare's and there are scenes which are marked by those of Fletcher's; the difference is one reason for separating the authorship. Shakspere's images in _The Noble You notice in this instances of Shakspeare's favourite images, and words. Is this a proof of the play been his or does it only indicate imitation? Shakspeare's case, such resemblance, taken by itself, can neither way. [Sidenote: Shakspere a mannerist in style, and] Shakspeare is a mannerist in style. this himself, and what says of his poems, equally of dramatic language; "keeps invention in a noted weed[12:1];" and almost every word or of words is so marked in its character that its known a glance. [Sidenote: in variety. Shakspere repeats But only is his style in general to of mistaken; not only is deficient in variety of structure, it is in a frequent recurrence of the same images, often clothed identically the same words. You are quite of this, and those who are not, may be convinced of it opening any the annotated editions. So far, then
 [Sidenote:
Fletcher's.] Fletcher'S rhythm is oF a newEr aNd sMoOtheR casT, often
keeping tHE linEs distinct and without brEaks tHrOUgh wHOlE speeChes,
aboUNdING in DoUbLe eNdINgS, and vEry Seldom lEaving a linE inCoMplete
at the eND oF a sentence Or sCene.[11:1] And the opPosIte tasTe Of tHE
two pOetS in thEir choICe and aRrangemenT [11:2]oF Words, gIVes an
opPOSiTe chAracter to the whole MOdULation of their vErses. [SIdENoTE:
modUlaTion of FletChEr's veRSe: of ShaKSpERE'S.] FlETcher's is sweet And
flowing, aND peCuliarLy FitTEd eithEr for DeCLamAtion or the sOftnEss of
sorrOw: ShakSPeare's eAR is tuneD to the StaTelIest SOlEmNitY oF
ThoUGhT, or THe aBruptnesS aNd VehemEnce OF PASsioN. ThE preSent dRama
exhibits iN whOle sCEneS the qUalitIes oF SHakspEare's vErsifIcAtion;
and there arE othEr scenes wHicH aRe mArKed by THose of fleTchEr's; the
dIfferenCE is OnE REAsOn for separating the AuTHOrShip.

[SideNote: ShAKsPeRE's images AnD woRds iN _tHe Two noblE kiNsmen_.]

You Will noTIcE iN this plAy Many inStAncEs oF ShakSPearE's favoUrite
imaGes, anD Of his very words. iS this a proof of THe PLAy HAvinG beEn
his work, or Does IT onlY indICaTe iMItatiOn? In SHaKSpEAre's case,
such resemblAnCe, takeN by itSelf, can operatE neither waY. [sIDenote:
ShAkspERe A Mannerist in styLe, and] shakspeare IS a mannerIst in Style.
He kNew this hiMSElf, and whAt hE saYs oF hiS MInOr poems, is equaLLY
truE oF his draMatIc languAge; He "kEepS inVeNtion in a nOted
weed[12:1];" AnD aLmOsT evEry woRD or combiNaTioN oF woRds is SO markeD
in itS chaRaCtER thAt its auTHoR IS knoWn At A glaNce. [siDenotE:
wanTIng In varieTy. ShakspeRe rEPeatS hImSelf.] But Not only is his
sTyLe so peculiAr In iTs geneRAL qualitiEs, as scarcely to admit of
beINg mistaKen; Not onLy is It deficieNt iN varieTy oF StructUre, but It
is iN a ParTICular DEGrEe cHaRacterised BY A frEquenT rEcurRence of The
same images, often CLotHed in identicaLly The sAME wOrdS. yoU Are QuITe
aWARe of this, and thosE who are not, MaY Be Convinced oF It bY oPening
aNy page oF the aNNotated Editions. SO far, then
 [Sidenote:
Fletcher's.] F letcher'srhyth m i s o fa ne werand smoother c a st,often
keeping the line s dis ti n ct a n dwitho ut brea k st h rou gh  w hol es pe eches ,
a boundin g in doubl e e nd ings, and ve r yseldom lea vin g a line inc omp lete
a tthe end o f a  sent ence o r  scene .[11:1] A nd the op p osite t a s te  ofthe
two poets int he i r choice and a rrange me n t[ 1 1:2 ]of  words, gi ve s ano pposite ch a r a cte r  to the whole  modulation oftheirve rse s . [Sid enote :M odu lation of F letc her's ver se: of Shakspe r e's.] F letche r's  is  swe e tan d
f lo w ing ,  a ndp ecu liarly f it te d eit herf o r decl ama tion  or t he softness o f
s orro w : S haksp eare' s ea ris tu ned to  thest ateliest solemn ityof
though t,or  th eabrup t ness a ndveh emenceof pass i on.  T h e pr esent drama
exhibi ts i nwhole sc enes t h equ a lities o fSha kspe a r e's v ersi f ic ation;
a nd the r ear e other  s ceneswh ich  ar e mar k ed b y thos e of Fle tcher ' s; the
differe n ce is one rea s on f or sepa rat ing the aut hors h ip.
[Si d en ote :  Shak spere 's im a ges and words in _T he  Two N obleKinsmen_.]

Y ou will no t i c e in thi s pl a ym any instancesof Sh akspeare's favourit e
ima ges, and  of his v e r y words.  Is  th isa p r o of  of the playh a ving  b een
his  wo rk, ordoe s i t o nly  i ndicate i mitation ?In  S ha ksp eare' s  case,
s uc h r es emb lance ,  taken  by i tsel f,  c a n o peraten ei t h er w ay .[Sid eno te :
Sha kspe r e a  manner ist in st yle ,  and ]Sh akspear e is a manner is t in style .Heknew t h i s himsel f, and what he says ofh is mino r p oems,  isequally
t rue  of hi s d r amatic  langu age;he  "k e e ps in v e nt ion  i n a notedw e ed[ 12:1] ;"  and  almost  every word or com b ina tion of words  is  som a rk edi ni tsch a rac t e r that its auth or is know na ta glance.[ Sid en ote:
wa nting i n var i ety. Sh akspere r epeats hi ms elf. ] But  not onlyis his
s tyle so p e culia r  i n its  ge neralqu ali ties,  as sc a rce ly to  admit  o f
bein g mis ta ken; not  only is it deficient i n vari ety o f s tructure,  bu t  it 
is in apart icular deg ree  ch aract eri s ed by  a f r eq uen t  recu rren c e of thes am e i m a ge s, often cl o t h edin id ent i callythesame words. You a r e quite
awareof t h i s,and thos ewho are not, m aybe c onvinced  o f it by ope ning
any  p a ge of  the a nnotat ed edit i o ns .  So fa r, t hen 
 [Sidenote:
Fletcher's.]_Fletcher's rhythm_is of a newer_and smoother_cast,_often
keeping the_lines_distinct and without_breaks through whole_speeches,
abounding in double endings,_and very seldom_leaving_a line incomplete
at the end of a sentence or scene.[11:1] And the opposite taste_of_the
two poets_in_their_choice and arrangement [11:2]of words,_gives an
opposite character to the_whole modulation_of their verses. [Sidenote:
Modulation of Fletcher's verse: of_Shakspere's.]_Fletcher's is sweet_and
flowing, and peculiarly fitted either for declamation or the_softness of
sorrow: Shakspeare's ear is tuned_to the stateliest_solemnity_of
thought,_or the abruptness and_vehemence of passion. The present drama
exhibits_in whole scenes the qualities of_Shakspeare's versification;
and there are other scenes which_are marked by those of Fletcher's;_the
difference is one reason for_separating the_authorship.

[Sidenote: Shakspere's images and words_in _The Two_Noble Kinsmen_.]

You_will notice in_this play many instances of Shakspeare's_favourite
images, and of_his very words. Is this a_proof_of the play_having_been
his_work, or_does it only_indicate_imitation? In_Shakspeare's_case,
such resemblance, taken by itself, can_operate_neither way. [Sidenote:
Shakspere a mannerist in style,_and] Shakspeare is a_mannerist_in style.
He knew this_himself, and what he says_of his minor poems, is equally
true_of his_dramatic language;_he "keeps invention in a noted
weed[12:1];" and almost every word or_combination of words is so marked
in_its character that its_author is_known_at a glance._[Sidenote:
wanting_in variety._Shakspere repeats himself.] But not only is_his
style so_peculiar in its general qualities, as_scarcely to admit of
being_mistaken;_not only is it deficient in_variety of structure, but it
is in_a particular degree characterised by_a_frequent_recurrence of the
same images, often_clothed in identically the same words._You are quite
aware_of this, and those who are not,_may_be convinced of it by opening
any_page_of the annotated editions. So far,_then