[265] Most of these, it may be remarked, as well as the character of Thenot and the unconventional role of the satyr, find parallels in the earlier stages of the Italian pastoral.  The transformation-well recalls the enchanted lake of the Sacrifizio; the introduction of a supernatural agent in the plot reminds us of the same play, as well as of Epicuro’s Mirzia; the friendly satyr, of this latter, which may be, in its turn, indebted to the revised version of the Orfeo; the character of Thenot is anticipated in the Sfortunato.  I give the resemblances for what they are worth, which is perhaps not much; it is unlikely that Fletcher should have been acquainted with any of the plays in question, though of course not impossible.  The magic taper appears to be a native superstition, a survival of the ordeal by fire.

[266] Certain critics have suggested that the Pastor fido might more appropriately have borne the title of Fletcher’s play.  This is absurd, since it would mean giving the title-role to the wholly secondary Dorinda.  Perhaps they failed to perceive that Mirtillo and not Silvio is the hero.  With Fletcher’s play the case stands otherwise.  There is absolutely nothing to show whether the title refers to the presiding genius of the piece, Clorin, faithful to the memory of the dead, or to the central character, Amoret, faithful in spite of himself to her beloved Perigot.  I incline to believe that it is the latter that is the ’faithful shepherdess,’ since it might be contended that, in the conventional language of pastoral, Clorin would be more properly described as the ‘constant shepherdess.’ (Cf.  II. ii. 130.)

[267] See Homer Smith’s paper on Pastoral Influence in the English Drama.  His theory concerning the Faithful Shepherdess will be found on p. 407.  Whatever plausibility there may be in the general idea, the detailed application there put forward would appear to be a singular instance of misapplied ingenuity in pursuance of a preconceived idea.

[268] ‘Poems’ [1619], p. 433.  Compare Boccaccio’s account of pastoral poetry already quoted, p. 18, note.

[269] One fault, which even the beauty of the verse fails to conceal, is the introduction of all sorts of stilted and otiose allusions to sheepcraft, which only serve to render yet more apparent the inherent absurdity of the artificial pastoral.  These Tasso and Guarini had had the good taste to avoid, but we have already had occasion to notice them in the case of Bonarelli.  Daniel is likewise open to censure on this score.

[270] I quote, of course, from Dyce’s text, but have for convenience added the line numbers from F. W. Moorman’s edition in the ‘Temple Dramatists.’

[271] The officious critic must be forgiven for remarking that the satyr is not, as might be supposed from this speech, suddenly tamed by Clorin’s beauty and virtue, but shows himself throughout as of a naturally gentle disposition.  Consequently Clorin’s argument that it is the mysterious power of virginity that has guarded her from attack and subdued his savage nature appears a little fatuous.