two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakspeare's or Jonson's; the reason is, because there is a certain gaiety in their comedies, and pathos in their more serious plays, which suit generally with all men's humour. Shakspeare's language is likewise a little obsolete; and Ben Jonson's wit comes short of theirs." Mr Gifford, in the introduction to his edition of Massinger, has remarked, that "Beaumont is as sublime and Fletcher as pathetic" as Shakspeare. The former of these positions seems to be hazarded somewhat at random, but the latter may be granted with some hesitation. The exquisite touches of natural pathos in which the compo sitions of our poets, and of Fletcher in particular, abound, set their superiority over most dramatic writers in this point in a strong light. Though the productions of Shakspeare stand unrivalled with respect to the frequent occurrence of single brilliant passages applicable to most sensations of the mind and situations of life, there are many entire scenes in Beaumont and Fletcher, which, in point of eloquence, and the expression of natural affections, hardly yield to the most celebrated scenes of that matchless poet. Dry 12 den observes: "The difference between Shakspeare and Fletcher in their plotting seems to be this, that Shakspeare moves more terror, and Fletcher more compassion; for the first had a more masculine, a bolder, and more fiery genius; the second a more soft and womanish. In the mechanic beauties of the plot, which are the observation of the three unities, time, place, and action, they are both deficient; but Shakspeare most." Beaumont's genius seems to have approached that of Shakspeare nearer than that of Fletcher, in boldness and manliness of conception and execution, while he, at the same time, had a strong teint of Ben Jonson in his mind. He frequently personifies humour, not only in his comic, but even in his serious characters. His pathetic powers he has fully demonstrated in Philaster. Fletcher possessed the same talents, but the same are not predominant in an equal degree. He yields to Beaumont in the delineation of strong and manly minds, but he excels him in pathos, and in his female characters, which, making allowance for his disposition to overstrain their virtues and vices, may be pronounced superior to those of almost any dramatist. Less rigidly attached to Ben Jonson than 9 Preface to Troilus and Cressida. his associate, he has, notwithstanding, proved, particularly in The Woman-Hater and Nice Valour, that it was not want of ability which led him to a less artificial delineation of humour in most of the comedies which he produced after the death of Beaumont. One undisputed superiority in Shakspeare, is his power of employing supernatural agency; and, in this respect, our poets not only yield the palm without question, but fall very low indeed, whenever they attempt to trespass upon his ground. Fortunately, they seldom venture into the world of spirits, and their complete failure whenever they attempt it, as in Cupid's Revenge and The Prophetess, is in some measure excused by the consideration, that none of their most illustrious contemporaries succeeded better. Middleton and Dekkar, two poets of the second rank, alone succeeded in what may be termed the lower department of supernatural agency. In general, the characters are well discriminated and well sustained in the plays of our authors; but here again they must yield a decided preference to Shakspeare, who was alone endued with a genius which could pourtray every variation of character, influenced by every passion and affection. Their talent, as well as that of Massinger, Jonson, and the second-rate poets of the time, was not, like his, boundless, but confined to the delineation of particular descriptions of character. Fletcher's easy gentlemen have always been allowed to exceed those of all other poets; his education, and the society he lived in, were, in this respect, of peculiar advantage to him. Had he been of low birth, and forced to struggle with adversity, like most of the writers for the stage at the time, we should, perhaps, not have found such perfect delineations of young men of spirit and fashion as Don John in The Chances, Mirabel in The Wild-Goose Chace, or Cleremont in The Little French Lawyer. There is great variety displayed in Fletcher's gallants; the steady honour of Don Jamie' and De Garde, the sprightly Piniero3 and Leandro,+ are equally portraits of nature with the madcap pranks of Monsieur Thomas, and of Wildbrain, in the Night-Walker, and the profligacy of Valentines and the younger Loveless." Fletcher is likewise peculiarly happy in delineating the passions of a lover; and, among many instances, Demetrius in The Humorous Lieutenant, Ar-. 4 2 Spanish Curate. * Wild-Goose Chace. 3 Island Princess. Wit Without Money. 6 Scornful Lady. musia in The Island Princess, and Francisco in Monsieur Thomas, may be adduced. The cha racter of Amintor in The Maid's Tragedy is a strong proof of Beaumont's talents in the same line. And here the vast superiority of the elder drama over that of the eighteenth century may be justly asserted. In the former, the lovers are as ardent as in the latter; they frequently sink under the vehemence of their affections, but they are not weakened by the false delicacy and sentimentality of the gallants with which the dramas of our own days abound. The power of love in overcoming habits, which apparently extinguish and set the passions at defiance, is most admirably exemplified in The Elder Brother, and in Love's Cure. In both plays, and particularly in the former, the gradual progress of the passion is delineated with the true hand of a master, without overstepping the modesty of nature.Philaster affords an instance of a lover distracted by jealousy, and weighed down by misfortune; his character is highly finished, and reflects great credit on Beaumont, who appears to have had the principal share in that drama. He has been called a Hamlet, racked with jealousy; but, though he certainly bears some distant resemblance to that character, he |