mont, Master of the Rolls; and his father Francis Beaumont, Judge of the Common-Pleas, who married Anne daughter of George Pierrepont of Home-Pierrepont, Nottinghamshire. He was educated at Cambridge, and after at the Inner-Temple. He died before he was thirty years of age, and was buried the 9th of March, 1615, at the entrance into St. Benedict's Chapel in Westminster-Abbey. He left one daughter behind him, Mrs. Frances Beaumont, who died in Leicestershire since the year 1700: she had been possessed of several poems of her father's writing, but they were lost at sea coming from Ireland, where she had some time lived in the Duke of Ormond's family. There was published, after our author's death, a small book containing several poems under his name, and among them the story of Salmacis, from the Metamorphoses of Ovid; and a translation of the Remedy of Love, from the same author. The Poem of Bosworth-Field, which has been universally esteemed, was written by his brother John Beaumont. JOHN FLETCHER, Esquire, (son of Dr. Richard Fletcher, who was created by Queen Elizabeth Bishop of Bristol, and after removed to Worcester, and from thence, in the year 1593, to London), was educated at Cambridge, and probably at Bennet-College, to which his father was by his will a benefactor. He died of the plague in the first year of the reign And since I have quoted one poetical authority, let me give another (with a little variation) from the immortal Spenser, which may farther illustrate, if not confirm our opinion. The poet speaking of Priamond, after he had died by Cainbell's hand in single combat, says, "His weary ghost assoyl'd from fleshly band Did not, as others wont, directly fly Ne into air did vanish presently, In whom he liv'd anew, of former life depriv'd." The application of these lines to our authors, is so easy that no reader can miss it, and the reason given for the sameness of manner, spirit, &c. in their joint and single performances, su clear for a poetical one, that no one can dispute it. And as to external evidence, though we have enough of it, 'tis so little to be depended on, that it has no weight with me, whatever it may have with the intelligent reader. The testimony of the versifiers, before our authors works, is so extravagant on the one side or on the other, that if we trust this panegyrist, Fletcher was the sole author, if that, Beaumont wrote alone, and if a third, the whole was the united work and labour of both. The printers of the quarto editions are no more concordant; for in different years and editions, you have sometimes Beaumont's and Fletcher's name, and sometimes the latter's singly before the same play. The prologue and epilogue writers may perhaps be more depended upon, but they do not go quite through with their work; for neither the quarto copies, nor the thirty-four plays in the 1647 edition, have all their full quotas of head and tail-pieces; and of these we have, there are few that speak out, and tell us from whose labours their audiences were to expect either pleasure or instruction. However this evidence, such as it is, I shall lay before the reader, by way of notes to the alphabetical account of our authors pieces (as drawn up by Dr. Langbaine) towards the conclusion of the following Preface; and leave it to his judgment to determine, how far upon such testimony, the authors were singly or jointly concerned; only I must give this caution, that where the prologue mentions poet, or author in the singular, there I suppose Fletcher is only designed, where in the plural, Beaumont is included. [The evidence Mr. Sympson here speaks of, the reader will find, with much additional information, in the title of each play of the present edition.] of of King Charles the First, and was buried in St. Mary Overy's Church in Southwark, August the 19th, 1625, in the forty-ninth year of his age. Several of their plays were printed in quarto while the authors were living; and in the year 1645, (twenty years after the death of Fletcher, and thirty after that of Beaumont) there was published in folio a collection of such of their plays as had not before been printed, amounting to between thirty and forty. At the beginning of this volume are inserted a great many Commendatory Verses, written in praise of the authors by persons of their acquaintance, and the most eminent of that age for wit and quality. This collection was published by Mr. Shirley, after the shutting up of the theatres, and dedicated to the Earl of Pembroke, by ten of the most famous actors, who profess to have taken great care in the edition; they lament their not being able to procure any picture of Mr. Beaumont, from which to take his effigies, as they had done that of Mr. Fletcher: but, through the favour of the present Earl of Dorset, that is now supplied; the head of Mr. Beaumont, and that of Mr. Fletcher, being taken from originals in the noble collection his lordship has at Knowles. In the year 1679, there was an edition in folio of all their plays published, containing those formerly printed in quarto, and those in the before-mentioned folio edition. Several of the Commendatory Verses are left out before that impression; but many of them relating to particulars of the authors, or their plays, they are prefixed to this; and a large omis sion of part of the last act of the tragedy of Thierry and Theodoret, is sup plied in this. The frequent and great audiences that several of their plays continue to bring, sufficiently declares the value this age has for them is equal to that of the former; and three such extraordinary writers as Mr. Waller, the Duke of Buckingham, and John late Earl of Rochester, selecting each of them one of their plays to alter for the stage, adds not a little to their reputation. 2 The Maid's Tragedy was very frequently acted after the Restoration, and with the greatest applause; Mr. Hart playing Amintor, Major Mohun, Melantius, and Mrs. Marshal, Evadne, equal to any other parts for which they were deservedly famous. But the latter ending of that play, where the king was killed, making it upon some particular occasion not thought proper to be farther represented, it was by private order from the court silenced. This was the reason Mr. Waller undertook the altering the latter part of that play, as it is now printed in the last edition of his works.Upon which alteration, this following remark was made by an eminent hand: "It is not to be doubted who sat for the two brothers characters, Twas agreeable to Mr. Waller's temper to soften the rigour of the tragedy, as he expresses it; but whether it be agreeable to the nature of tragedy itself, to make every thing come off easily, I leave to the critics." The Duke of Buckingham, so celebrated for writing the Rehearsal, *As our authors were planning one of their plays (this most probably) in a tavern, Mr. Fletcher was over-heard, by some of the house, to say, I'll undertake to kill the King. Words in appearance so treasonable as these were, could not long be kept concealed, and the discovery of them had like to have cost our poet dear: but it being demonstrated that this design was only against the person of a scenical sovereign, our author was freed from any farther trouble, and the intended process entirely dropped. Vide Winstanley's English Poets. SYMPSON. made made the two last acts of the Chances almost new. Mr. Hart played the part of Don John to the highest satisfaction of the audience; the play had a great run, and ever since has been followed as one of the best entertainments of the stage. His Grace, after that, bestowed some time in altering another play of our authors, called Philaster, or Love Lies aBleeding: He made very considerable alterations in it, and took it with him, intending to finish it the last journey he made to Yorkshire, in the year 1686. I cannot learn what is become of the play with his Grace's alterations, but am very well informed it was since the Revolution in the hands of Mr. Nevil Payne, who was imprisoned at Edinburgh in the year 1689. The alterations in Valentinian, by the Earl of Rochester, amount to about a third part of the whole; but his lordship died before he had done all he intended to it. It was acted with very great applause, Mr. Goodman playing Valentinian, Mr. Betterton, Æcius, and Mrs. Barry, Lucina. My lord died in the year 1680, and the play was acted in the year 1684, and the same year published by Mr. Robert Wolsly, with a Preface, /giving a large account of my lord, and his writings. This play, with the alterations, is printed at the end of his lordship's poems in octavo. Mr. Dryden, in his Essay of Dramatic Poetry, page 17, (in the first volume of the folio edition of his works) in a comparison of the French and English comedy, says, " As for comedy, repartee is one of its chiefest graces. The greatest pleasure of an audience is a chase of wit kept up on both sides, and swiftly managed: And this our forefathers (if not we) have had in Fletcher's plays, to a much higher degree of perfection than the French poets can arrive at.' And in the same Essay, page 19, he says, "Beaumont and Fletcher had, with the advantage of Shakespeare's wit, which was their precedent, great natural gifts, improved by study. Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge of plays, that Ben Jonson, while he lived, submitted all his writings to his censure, and 'tis thought used his judgment in correcting, if not contriving all his plots What value he had for him appears by the verses he wrote to him, and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The first play that brought Fletcher and him in esteem, was Philaster; for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully; as the like is reported of Ben Jonson, before he writ Every Man in his Humour. Their plots were generally more regular than Shakespeare's, especially those that were made before Beaumont's death. And they understood and imitated the conversation of gentlemen much better; whose wild debaucheries, and quickness of wit in repartees, no poet can ever paint as they have done. Humour, which Ben Jonson derived from particular persons, they made it not their business to describe; they represented all the passions very lively, but above all love. I am apt to believe the English language in them arrived to its highest perfection; what words have since been taken in, are rather superfluous than necessary. Their plays are now the most pleasant and frequent entertainments of the stage, two of theirs being acted through the year, for one of Shakespeare's or Jonson's; the reason is, because there is a certain gaiety in their comedies, and pathos in their more serious plays, which suits generally with all mens humour. Shakespeare's language is likewise a little obsolete, and Ben Jonson's wit comes short of theirs." This This Essay of Mr. Dryden's was written in the year 1666.3 Mr. Dryden said he had been informed, that after Beaumont's death, Mr. James Shirley was consulted by Fletcher in the plotting several of his 3 plays. - in the year 1666.] After this sentence was inserted Mr. Dryden's Remarks on Rymer, which Sympson, in his Introduction, p. xiv. mentions having rejected. They here follow, with the Prefacer's Observations. "In the year 1677, Mr. Rymer (now Historiographer Royal) published The Tragedies of the Last Age considered, in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd, Esq.' In this treatise he criticises upon Rollo Duke of Normandy, the Maid's Tragedy, and the King and No King; all three written by our authors, and the most taking plays then acted. He has there endea voured to the utmost the exposing their failings, without taking the least notice of their beauties; Mr. Rymer sent one of his books as a present to Mr. Dryden, who on the blank leaves, before the beginning, and after the end of the book, made several remarks, as if he designed an answer to Mr. Rymer's reflections; they are of Mr. Dryden's own hand-writing, and may be seen at the publisher's of this book; 'tis to be wished he had put his last hand to 'em, and made the connection closer, but just as he left them be pleased to take them here verbatim inserted. "He who undertakes to answer this excellent critic of Mr. Rymer, in behalf of our English poets against the Greek, ought to do it in this manner. Either by yielding to him the greatest part of what he contends for, which consists in this, that the (i. e.) the design and conduct of it is more conducing in the Greeks, to those ends of tragedy which Aristotle and he propose, namely, to cause terror and pity; yet the granting this does not set the Greeks above the English poets. But the answer ought to prove two things; first, That the fable is not the greatest master-piece of a tragedy, though it be the foundation of it. Secondly, That other ends as suitable to the nature of tragedy, may be found in the English, which were not in the Greek. "Aristotle places the fable first; not quoad dignitatem, sed quoud fundamentum; for a fable never so movingly contrived, to those ends of his, pity and terror, will operate hothing on our affections, except the characters, manners, thoughts and words are suitable. "So that it remains for Mr. Rymer to prove, That in all those, or the greatest part of them, we are inferior to Sophocles and Euripides; and this he has offered at in some measure, but, I think, a little partially to the ancients. "To make a true judgment in this competition, between the Greek poets and the English in tragedy, consider, "I. How Aristotle has defined a tragedy. "II. What he assigns the end of it to be. "III. What he thinks the beauties of it. "IV. The means to attain the end proposed. Compare the Greek and English tragic poets justly and without partiality, according to those rules. "Then, Secondly, consider, whether Aristotle has made a just definition of tragedy, of its parts, of its ends, of its beauties; and whether he having not seen any others but those of Sophocles, Euripides, &c. had or truly could determine what all the excellencies of tragedy are, and wherein they consist. "Next show in what ancient tragedy was deficient; for example, in the narrowness of its plots, and fewness of persons, and try whether that be not a fault in the Greek poets; and whether their excellency was so great, when the variety was visibly so little; or whether what they did was not very easy to do. "Then make a judgment on what the English have added to their beauties: As for example, not only more plot, but also new passions; as namely, that of love, scarce touched on by the ancients, except in this one example of Phædra, cited by Mr. Rymer, and in that how short they were of Fletcher. "Prove also that love, being an heroic passion, is fit for tragedy, which cannot be denied; because of the example alledged of Phædra: And how far Shakespeare has outdone them in friendship, &c. "To return to the beginning of this enquiry, consider if pity and terror be enough for tragedy to move, and I believe upon a true definition of tragedy, it will be found that its work extends farther, and that it is to reform manners by delightful representation of human life in great persons, by way of dialogue. If this be true, then not only pity and terror are to be moved as the only means to bring us to virtue, but generally love to virtue, and hatred to vice, by plays. It does seem that Shirley did supply many that were left imperfect, and that the old players gave some remains, or imperfect plays of Fletcher's by shewing the rewards of one, and punishments of the other; at least by rendering virtue always amiable, though it be shown unfortunate; and vice detestable, though it be shown triumphant. "If then the encouragement of virtue, and discouragement of vice, be the proper end of poetry in tragedy: Pity and terror, though good means, are not the only: For all the passions in their turns are to be set in a ferment; as joy, anger, love, fear, are to be used as the poets common places; and a general concernment for the principal actors is to be raised, by making them appear such in their characters, their words and actions, as will interest the audience in their fortunes. "And if after all, in a large sense, pity comprehends this concernment for the good, and terror includes detestation for the bad; then let us consider whether the English have not answered this end of tragedy, as well as the ancients, or perhaps better. "And here Mr. Rymer's objections against these plays are to be impartially weighed; that we may see whether they are of weight enough to turn the balance against our country men. "It is evident those plays which he arraigns have moved both those passions in a high degree upon the stage. "To give the glory of this away from the poet, and to place it upon the actors, seems unjust. "One reason is, because whatever actors they have found, the event has been the same, that is, the same passions have been always moved: Which shows, that there is something of force and merit in the plays themselves, conducing to the design of raising those two passions: And suppose them ever to have been excellently acted, yet action only adds grace, vigour, and more life upon the stage, but cannot give it wholly where it is not first. But secondly, I dare appeal to those who have never seen them acted, if they have not found those two passions moved within them; and if the general voice will carry it, Mr. Rymer's prejudice will take off his single testimony. "This being matter of fact, is reasonably to be established by this appeal: As if one man say it is night, when the rest of the world conclude it to be day, there needs no further argument against him that it is so. "If he urge, that the general taste is depraved; his arguments to prove this can at best but evince, that our poets took not the best way to raise those passions; but experience proves against him, that those means which they have used, have been successful, and have produced them. "And one reason of that success is, in my opinion, this, that Shakespeare and Fletcher have written to the genius of the age and nation in which they lived: For though nature, as he objects, is the same in all places, and reason too the same; yet the climate, the age, the dispositions of the people to whom a poet writes, may be so different, that what pleased the Greeks, would not satisfy an English audience. "And if they proceeded upon a foundation of truer reason to please the Athenians, than Shakespeare and Fletcher to please the English, it only shows that the Athenians were a more judicious people: But the poet's business is certainly to please the audience. "Whether our English audience have been pleased hitherto with acorns, as he calls it, or with bread, is the next question; that is, whether the means which Shakespeare and Fletcher have used in their plays to raise those passions before-named, be better applied to the ends by the Greek poets than by them; and perhaps we shall not grant him this wholly. Let it be yielded that a writer is not to run down with the stream, or to please the people by their own usual methods, but rather to reform their judgments: It still remains to prove that our theatre needs this total reformation. "The faults which he has found in their designs, are rather wittily aggravated in many places, than reasonably urged; and as much may be returned on the Greeks, by one who were as witty as himself. "Secondly, They destroy not, if they are granted, the foundation of the fabric, only take away from the beauty of the symmetry. For example: The faults in the character of the King and No King, are not, as he makes them, such as render him detestable; but only imperfections which accompany human nature, and for the most part excused by the violence of his love; so that they destroy not our pity or concernment for him. This answer may be applied to most of his objections of that kind. "And Rollo committing many murders, when he is answerable but for one, is too severely |