arts, and the needless unending sufferings of persecuted
virtue, as Webster; nor yet to give us a faithful picture of the
different phases of life in Jacobean London, as Dekker, Heywood,
Middleton, and others. They wrote for the very joy of writing, to give
vent to their over-bubbling fancy and their tender feeling.

They are lyrical and descriptive poets of the first order, with a
wonderful ease and grace of expression. The songs scattered throughout
their plays are second only to Shakespeare's. The volume and variety of
their work is astonishing. They left more than fifty-two printed plays,
and all of these show an extraordinary power of invention; the most
diverse passions, characters, and situations enter into the work, their
stories stimulate our curiosity, and their characters appeal to our
sympathies. Especially in half-farcical, half-pathetic comedy they have
no superior; their wit and spirit here find freest play. Despite much
coarseness, their work is full of delicate sensibility, and suffused
with a romantic grace of form and a tenderness of expression that
endears them to our hearts, and makes them more lovable than any of
their brother dramatists, with the possible exception of genial Dekker.
The spirit of chivalry breathes through their work, and the gentleman
and scholar is always present. For in contradiction to most of their
fellow-workers, they were not on the stage; they never took part in its
more practical affairs either as actors or managers; they derived the
technical knowledge necessary to a successful playwright from their
intimacy with stage folk.

As poets, aside from their dramatic work, they occupy a secondary place.
Beaumont especially has left, beyond one or two exquisite lyrics, little
that is noteworthy, except some commendatory verses addressed to Jonson.
On the other hand, Fletcher's 'Faithful Shepherdess,' with Jonson's 'Sad
Shepherd' and Milton's 'Comus,' form that delightful trilogy of the
first pastoral poems in the English language.

The popularity of Beaumont and Fletcher in the seventeenth century, as
compared to that of Shakespeare, has been over-emphasized; for between
1623 and 1685 they have only two folio editions, those of 1647 and 1679,
as against four of Shakespeare. Their position among the Elizabethans is
unique. They did not found a school either in comedy or tragedy.
Massinger, who had more in common with them than any other of the
leading dramatists, cannot be call