re regular than Shakespear's; they touch the tender
passions, and excite love in a very moving manner; their faults,
notwithstanding Beaumont's castigation, consist in a certain
luxuriance, and stretching their speeches to an immoderate length;[2]
however, it must be owned their wit is great, their language suited
to the passions they raise, and the age in which they lived is a
sufficient apology for their defects. Mr. Dryden tells us, in his
Essay on Dramatic Poetry, that Beaumont and Fletcher's plays in his
time were the most pleasing and frequent entertainments of the stage,
two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakespear's or
Johnson's; and the reason he assigns is, because there is a certain
gaiety in their comedies, and a pathos in their most serious plays
which suits generally with all men's humours; but however it might
be when Dryden writ, the case is now reversed, for Beaumont and
Fletcher's plays are not acted above once a season, while one of
Shakespear's is represented almost every third night. It may seem
strange, that wits of the first magnitude should not be so much
honoured in the age in which they live, as by posterity;[3] it is now
fashionable to be in raptures with Shakespear; editions are multiplied
upon editions, and men of the greatest genius have employed all their
power in illustrating his beauties, which ever grow upon the reader,
and gain ground upon perusal. These noble authors have received
incense of praise from the highest pens; they were loved and esteemed
by their cotemporaries, who have not failed to demonstrate their
respect by various copies of verses at different times, and upon
different occasions, addressed to them, the insertion of which would
exceed the bounds proposed for this work. I shall only observe, that
amongst the illustrious names of their admirers, are Denham, Waller,
Cartwright, Ben Johnson, Sir John Berkenhead, and Dryden himself, a
name more than equal to all the rest. But the works of our authors
have not escaped the censure of critics, especially Mr. Rhymer the
historiographer, who was really a man of wit and judgment, but
somewhat ill natured; for he has laboured to expose the faults,
without taking any notice of the beauties of Rollo Duke of Normandy,
the King and No King, and the Maids Tragedy, in a piece of his called
The Tragedies of the Last Age considered, and examined by the practice
of the ancients, and by the common sense of all ages, in a