Page:Essays and Studies - Swinburne (1875).pdf/317

 skilfully wrought in, and so far serviceable that it effectually cuts off Soranzo's chance of arousing such interest or sympathy as might divert the reader's mind from the central figures of Giovanni and Annabella; in this case the discarded adulteress and her cast-off husband are mere worthless impediments which subserve no end whatever.

Of the two plays which bear conjointly the names of Ford and Decker, "The Sun's Darling" is evidently, as Gifford calls it, a "piece of patchwork" hastily stitched up for some momentary purpose; I suspect that the two poets did not work together on it, but that our present text is merely a recast by Ford of an earlier masque by Decker; probably, as Mr. Collier has suggested, his lost play of ""Phaëton," for which we might be glad to exchange the "loop'd and window'd nakedness" of this ragged version. In those parts which are plainly remnants of Decker's handiwork there are some scattered lines of great sweetness, such as these of lament for the dead spring:—

How cool wert thou in anger! in thy diet How temperate and yet sumptuous! thou wouldst not waste The weight of a sad violet in excess, Yet still thy board had dishes numberless; Dumb beasts even lovèd thee; once a young lark Sat on thy hand, and gazing on thine eyes Mounted and sang, thinking them moving skies."

For the latter scenes, as Gifford observes, it is clear that Ford is in the main responsible; the intrusion in the fifth act of political satire and adulation is singularly perverse and infelicitous. In the opening scene, also, between Raybright and the Priest of the Sun, I recognise