and none of the numerous contemporary Poems, published with theirs before the first Folio Edition of our Authors, degrade Beaumont fo very low as thefe. Sir John Berkenhead allows him a full Moiety of the Fame, but feems to think his Genius more turned to grave Sublimity than to Sprightlinefs of Imagination. Fletcher's keen Treble, and deep Beaumont's Bafe. Thus has this Line of Sir John's been hitherto read and understood, but its Authenticity in this Light will be difputed when we come to that Poem, and the Juftness of the Character at present. We have among the Commendatory Poems, One of Mr. Earle's wrote immediately after Beaumont's Death, and ten Years before Fletcher's: He feems to have been an Acquaintance as well as Contemporary, and his Teftimony ought to have much more Weight than all the Traditional Opinions of those who wrote thirty Years after. He afcribes to Beaumont three first-rate Plays; The Maid's Tragedy, Philafter, and The King and No-King. The firft of thefe has a grave Sublimity mingled with more Horror and Fury than are frequently feen among the gay-spirited Scenes of Fletcher, and probably gave rife to the report of Beaumont's deep Bafe. But there is fcarce a more lively-fpirited Character in all their Plays than Philafter, and I believe Beaumont aimed at drawing a Hamlet racked with Othello's Love and Jealousy. The King and No King too is extremely fpirited in all its Characters; Arbaces holds up a Mirrour to all Men of virtuous Principles but violent Paffions: Hence he is as it were at once. Magnanimity and Pride, Patience and Fury, Gentleness and Rigour, 2 4 Chastity Chastity and Incest, and is one of the finest Mixture of Virtues and Vices that any Poet has drawn, except the Hot-fpur of Shakespear, and the impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer, of Homer. (For a Defence of this Character against Mr. Rhymer's Cavils, fee Note the 2d in The King and No King.) Beffus and his two Swordsmen in this Play are infinitely.the livelieft Comic Characters of mere bragging Cowards which we have in our Language; and if they do not upon the whole equal the extenfive and inimitable Humours of Falstaff and his Companions, they leave all other Characters of the fame Species, ev'n ShakeSpear's own Parolles far behind them. Our excellent Congreve has confolidated the two Swordsmen to form his Captain Bluff. And be it his Honour to have imitated fo well, tho' he is far from reaching the Originals. Beaumont lived in the Age of Duelling upon every flight Punctilio. Congreve wrote his Bluff in the Flanders War: Times when a Braggart was the most ridiculous of all Characters; and fo far was Beaumont from the fuppofed grave folemn Tragic Poet only, that Comic Humour, particularly in drawing Cowardife, feems his peculiar Talent. For the Spirit of Beffus paulum mutatus, chang'd only fo as to give a proper Novelty of Character, appears again in The Nice Valour, or Paf fionate Madman. The Traces of the fame Hand, fo ftrongly mark'd in this Play, ftrike a new Light upon Beaumont's Character. For in a Letter to Jonfon, printed at the end of The Nice Valour, Vol. X, pag. 365. he fpeaks of himself not as a mere Corrector of others Works, but as a Poet of acknowledg'd Eminence, and of The Nice Valour, and some other Comedy, (which the Publisher of the fecond fecond Folio* took for the Woman-Hater) as his Plays (which must be understood indeed as chiefly his, not excluding Fletcher's Affiftance.). Now thefe two Plays totally differ in their Manner from all that Fletcher wrote alone: They confift not of Characters from real Life, as Fletcher and Shakespear draw theirs, but of Paffions and Humours perfoniz'd, as Cowardife in Lapet, Nice Honour in Shamont, the Madness of different Paffions in The Madman, the Love of nice Eating in Lazarillo, the Hate of Women in Gonderino. This is Jonfon's Manner, to whom in the Letter quoted above, Beaumont indeed acknowledges that he owed it. Fate once again Bring me to thee, who canft make fmooth and plain Proteft it will my greatest Comfort be *The Publishers of the fecond Folio added feveral genuine Songs, Prologues, Epilogues, and fome Lines in particular Plays not contained in any former Edition, which, by the Account given, they perhaps got from either an old Actor, or a Playhouse-Prompter; they fay, from a Gentleman who had been intimate with both the Authors, they probably were directed by Lights received from him to place The Woman-Hater directly before The Nice Valour, and to make this the other Play which Beaumont claims. The Little French Lawyer, and The Knight of the Burning Peftle, are moft certainly two Plays which Beaumont had a large Share in, for his Hand is very visible in the extreme droll Character of The French Lawyer who runs Duello-mad; the Prologue talks of the Authors in the Plural Number, and the Strain of high Burlefque appears very fimilar in the two Characters of Lazarillo in The Woman-Hater, and Ralpho in The Burning Peftle. Beaumont's Name too is put firft in the Title-page of the first Quarto of this laft Play, published a few Years after Fletcher's Death. Does Does Jonson (who is faid conftantly to have confulted Beaumont, and to have paid the greatest Deference to his Judgment) does he, I fay, treat him in his Answer as a meer Critic, and Judge of others Works only? No, but as an eminent Poet, whom he lov'd with a Zeal enough to kindle a Love to his Memory, as long as Poetry delights the Understanding, or Friendship warms the Heart. How I do love thee, Beaumont, and thy Mufe, How I do fear myself, that am not worth The leaft indulgent Thought thy Pen drops forth ! See the Remainder of this Poem III. of the Commendatory Verfes; fee also the first of these Poems. by Beaumont himself, the Clofe of which will fufficiently confirm both his Vigour of Imagination and Sprightliness of Humour. Having thus, we hope, difpers'd the Cloud that for Ages has darken'd Beaumont's Fame, let it again fhine in full Luftre Britanniæ Sidus alterum et Decus gemellum. And let us now examine the Order and Magnitude of this Poetic Conftellation, and view the joint Characters of Beaumont and Fletcher. These Authors are in a direct Mean between Shakefpear and fonfon, they do not reach the amazing Rapidity and immortal Flights of the former, but they foar with more Eafe and to nobler Heights than the latter; They have lefs of the Os magna fonans, the Vivida Vis Animi, the noble Enthufiafm, the Mufe of Fire, the terrible Graces of Shakespear, but they have much more of all these than Jonfon. On the other hand, in Literature they much excel the former, and are excell'd by the the latter; and therefore they are more regular in their Plots and more correct in their Sentiments and Diction than Shakespear, but lefs fo than Jonfon. Thus far Beaumont and Fletcher are One, but as hinted above in this they differ; Beaumont ftudied and follow'd Jonfon's Manner, perfoniz'd the Paffons and drew Nature in her Extremes; Fletcher follow'd Shakespear and Nature in her ufual Dress (this Diftinction only holds with regard to their Comic Works, for in Tragedies they all chiefly paint from real Life.) Which of thefe Manners is most excellent may be difficult to fay; the former feems moft ftriking, the latter more pleafing, the former fhews Vice and Folly in the most ridiculous Lights, the latter more fully fhews each Man himself, and unlocks the inmoft Receffes of the Heart. Great are the Names of the various Masters who follow'd the one and the other Manner. Jonfon, Beaumont and Moliere lift on one Side; Terence, Shakespear and Fletcher on the other. But to return to our Duumvirate, between whom two other small Differences are obfervable. Beaumont, as appears by various Teftimonies and chiefly by his own Letter prefix'd to the old Folio Edition of Chaucer, was a hard Student; and for one whom the World loft before he was thirty, had a surprising Compafs of Literature: Fletcher was a polite rather than a deep Scholar, and converfed with Men at least as much as with Books. Hence the gay Sprightliness and natural Eafe of his young Gentleman are allow'd to be inimitable; in thefe he has been preferred by Judges of Candour even to Shakespear himself. If Beaumont does not equal him in this, yet being by his Fortune converfant also in high Life (the Son of a Judge, as the other of a Bishop) He |